http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VYASENDRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/05/1983

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1983 SCR  (3)   1        1983 SCC  (3)  70  1983 SCALE  (1)519

ACT:      Maharashtra Agricultural  Lands (Ceiling  on  Holdings) Act, 27  of 1961-s.4(1)-Scope of-Land owned and held by wife as separate  property or stridhan property-Deemed to be held by the family unit.

HEADNOTE:      Whether the  land owned  and held  by the  wife as  her separate property  can be  clubbed together  with the  lands held by  her husband and the other members of the family for the purpose  of computing the ceiling on the holding of the’ family  unit’   under  the  Maharashtra  Agricultural  Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.      Section 4(1)  of the  said Act  provides that  for  the purpose of  determining the  ceiling area of the family unit all land  held by  each member  of a  family  unit,  whether jointly or  separately, shall  be deemed  to be  held by the family unit.  Explanation to  s. 4(1)  states  that  ’Family unit’ means a person and his spouse and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters, if any.      Respondent’s claim that certain land which stood in the name of  his wife was her separate property was not accepted by the  Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal, which included that land in the total holding of the respondent. Before the Additional Commissioner,  the respondent  contended that the land which  was sold by his wife after the notified date was wrongly included  in the  holding of  the family  unit.  The Additional Commissioner  remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh inquiry into the question as to whether the sale effected by  the Respondent’s  wife was  supported by  legal necessity. On  a writ  petition filed  by the respondent the High Court  directed the  Tribunal to  enquire also into the question as to whether the land which was in the name of the respondent’s wife  was her separate property. On appeal, the appellant contended  that the  High Court  was in  error  in enlarging the  scope of  the order  of remand  passed by the Additional Commissioner.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: All  land held by each member of the family unit, whether jointly or separately, is to be deemed to be held by the family  unit, for the purpose of determining the ceiling

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

area which the family unit may retain. The circumstance that the land held by a constituent members of the family unit is separate property  or stridhan  property is  a matter  of no consequence whaatso- 2 ever for  the purpose  of determining the ceiling area which the family unit can retain. [4 E-G]      In the  instant case the respondent, his wife and their minor sons  and minor  unmarried daughters,  if any, are all constituent members  of the  family unit  and all  the lands held by  them have  to be pooled together for the purpose of determining the  ceiling area  which is  permissible to  the family unit.  The nature  or character  of their interest in the land  held by  them  is  irrelevant  for  computing  the ceiling area which the family unit may retain. [4 G-H]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4264 of 1983.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  25th April, 1979 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1117 of 1979.      V.  S.  Desai  and  M.  N.  Shroff  with  him  for  the Appellant.      Nemo for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  A question  frequently arises  under the  Agricultural   Ceiling  Acts   passed  by   the   State Legislatures as to whether the land owned and held by a wife as her  separate property  can be  clubbed together with the lands held  by her  husband and  the other  members  of  the family for  the purpose  of computing  the  ceiling  on  the holding of  the ’family  unit’. That question arises in this appeal under  the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961, (The Act’).      The respondent  Vyasendra filed  a return under section 12 of  the Act  showing the lands held by him and mentioning that certain  lands which stood in the name of his wife were her  separate  property.  The  Surplus  Lands  Determination Tribunal held  under section  21 of  the Act  that the total holding of  the respondent,  including the  land  which  was alleged to  be the  separate property  of his  wife, was  67 acres and  34 gunthas. Since the ceiling under the Act is 54 acres,  the  respondent  was  asked  to  surrender  an  area admeasuring 13 acres and 34 gunthas.      The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, called for the record  and  proceedings  of  the  Tribunal  suo  motu.  The respondent 3 contended in  those proceedings that an area of 17 acres and 27 gunthas  which was  sold by  his wife  after the notified date, was wrongly included in the holding of the family unit on the  basis that  the sale  was  mala  fide  and  was  not supported by  legal necessity. By an order dated January 16, 1979 the  Additional Commissioner remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh inquiry into the question as to whether the sale of land effected by the respondent’s wife after the notified  date   was  supported   by  legal  necessity.  The contention was  that the respondent’s wife had sold the land in order to meet the medical expenses in connection with her illness.      The respondent filed a writ petition (No. 1117 of 1979) in the  High Court  of Bombay  against the  judgment of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Additional Commissioner.  The contention  of the  respondent before the  High Court  was that the Additional Commissioner should have  remanded the  proceedings to  the Tribunal  not only for the purpose of determining whether the respondent’s wife had  sold the  land for  the purpose of legal necessity but also  for the  purpose of  determining whether  the land which stood in the name of the respondent’s wife constituted her separate  or  Stridhan  property.  This  contention  was accepted by  the High  Court which,  by its  judgment  dated April 25, 1979 enlarged the scope of the remand by directing the Tribunal to inquire also into the question as to whether the land  which stood  in the  name of the respondent’s wife was her  separate property.  The correctness of the judgment of the  High Court is challenged by the State of Maharashtra in this appeal.      By an order dated March 8, 1983 this Court had issued a show cause notice to the respondent stating therein that the matter will  be finally  heard and  disposed of  at the next hearing. The  show cause  notice  has  been  served  on  the respondent but he has not put in his appearance.      Shri  V.  S.  Desai,  who  appears  on  behalf  of  the appellant, contends  that the  High Court  was in  error  in enlarging the  scope of  the order  of remand  passed by the Additional Commissioner by directing the Tribunal to hold an inquiry into  the question  whether the  land which stood in the name  of the respondent’s wife and which was sold by her allegedly for  medical expenses,  was her separate property. This  contention  is  well-founded  and  must  be  accepted. Section 3(1)  of the  Act provides,  to the extent material, that no  ’family unit’  shall after  the commencement  date, hold land in excess of the ceiling 4 areas as  determined in  the manner  provided by the Act. By subsection (2)  of section 3, the land held by a family unit in excess  of the  ceiling area is regarded as surplus land, liable to be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the Act. Section 4(1)  of the  Act, which is of crucial importance in this case, reads thus:           "4. Land  held by family unit-(1) All land held by      each member  of  a  family  unit,  whether  jointly  or      separately, shall  for the  purposes of determining the      ceiling area  of the  family unit, be deemed to be held      by the family unit.           Explanation-A ’Family unit’ means,-           (a)  a person  and his  spouse (or  more than  one                spouse)  and   their  minor  sons  and  minor                unmarried daughters, if any; or           (b)  where  any  spouse  is  dead,  the  surviving                spouse or  spouses, and  the minor  sons  and                minor unmarried daughters; or           (c)  where the  spouses are  dead, the  minor sons                and  minor   unmarried  daughters   of   such                deceased spouses." It is clear from these provisions that all land held by each member of the family unit, whether jointly or separately, is to be  deemed to be held by the family unit, for the purpose of determining  the ceiling  area which  the family unit may retain. The  expression ’family  unit’  is  defined  by  the Explanation to mean "a person and his spouse...". The circumstance  that the land held by a constituent member of the family unit is separate property or stridhan property is a  matter of no consequence whatsoever for the purpose of determining the  ceiling area  which  the  family  unit  can retain. The  respondent, his  wife and  their minor sons and minor unmarried  daughters,  if  any,  are  all  constituent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

members of  the family  unit and  all the lands held by them have to  be pooled  together for  the purpose of determining the ceiling  area which  is permissible  to the family unit. The nature  or character  of their interest in the land held by them  is irrelevant  for computing the ceiling area which the family  unit may retain. The High Court was therefore in error in directing the Tribunal to 5 inquire into the question as to whether the land which stood in the  name of  the respondent’s wife and which was sold by her was  her personal  or separate property. Assuming it was so, it  is still  liable to be aggregated with the land held by the respondent.      In the  result, we  allow the  appeal,  set  aside  the judgment of  the High  Court and confirm the order of remand passed  by  the  Additional  Commissioner,  Aurangabad.  The Surplus Lands  Determination Tribunal  will inquire into the limited  question   referred  to   it  by   the   Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, only.      There will be no order as to costs. H.S.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 6