Holding

Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 mandates that all land held by each member of a family unit, irrespective of its nature as separate or stridhan property, must be aggregated for computing the family unit's ceiling area.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court order that had directed the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal to examine whether land held in the name of the respondent's wife was her separate or stridhan property. The respondent, Vyasendra, claimed that such land should be excluded from the family unit's aggregate holdings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The Tribunal had originally included the wife's land in the total holding, exceeding the ceiling of 54 acres, and the Additional Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Tribunal to inquire into the legality of a sale made by the wife after the notified date. The Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) of the Act deems all land held by each member of a family unit, whether jointly or separately, to be held by the family unit for the purpose of computing the ceiling, and that the character of the interest (separate or stridhan) is irrelevant. Consequently, the High Court's enlargement of the remand was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the order of remand limited to the question of legal necessity of the sale was confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether land owned by a wife as separate or stridhan property can be excluded from the family unit's aggregate holdings for ceiling determination under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 4(1)

Subjects

agricultural ceilingfamily unitseparate propertystridhanland aggregationMaharashtra Agricultural Lands Actsurplus landlegal necessity

Judgment

I

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
v.

VYASENDRA

May 3, 1983
B
[Y. V. CHANDRACIIUD C. J. AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.)

Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961-
s. 4(1)-Scope of-Land owned and held by wife as separate proper'y or strldhan
. property-Deemed to be held by the family uni(·
c '
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.
D
Section 4(1) of the said Act provides that for the purpose of dets:rmining
the ceilitig 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 1ninor sons and minor unmarried daughters, if any.

)
E
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 Deter-
mination Tribunal, which included that land in the total holding of the respon-
dent. Before the Additional Commissioner, the respondent contended that the
land which was sold by his wifr after the notified d<lte was wrongly included
in the holding of the family unit, The Additional Commissioner remanded F
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 iiecessity.
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 ~ife 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. G

• Allowing the appeal,

HELD: AU land held by each member of the family unit, whether H
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 uflit may retain. The
circumstance that the land held by a constituent members of the family unit is
separate property or stridhan property is a mattei- of no conseq,u~nce what~q...
SUPREME cOURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R.

ever for the purpose' of determining the ceiling area which the family unit
A 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 co.nstituent members of the family
unit and all the lands held by, thein have to be ·pooled together for the.purpose
of detennining 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
B computing the ceiling area which the family ullit may retain. [4 G·H]

C1v11 APPELLATB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4264 of
1983.

c Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the-25th April, 1979 of the Bombay High. Court in Writ Petition
No. 1117of1979. •

V. S. Desai and M. N. Shroff with him for the Appellant.

D 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
E
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 Lauds (Ceiling on
F 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 pro-
perty. The Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal held under
G section 21 of t_he 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 gun thas. Since the ceiling under the )•
Act is 54 acres, the respondent was asked to surrender an area
admeasuring l3 acres and 34 gunthas.
l1
The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, called for the
record and proceedin~s of the Tribunal ~uo motu. The respondel\t
MAHARASHTRA v. VYASENDRA (Chandrachud, CJ.) -~

contended in those · proceedings that an area of 17 acres .and 27
gunthas which was sold by his wife after the notified date, was A
wrongly included in the holding of the family unit on the basis that
the sale was ma/a fide and was not supported by legal necessity. By
an order dated January 16; 1979 the Additional Commissioner re·
mantled 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 ihe notified date was supported by legal necessity. The
B
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 Additional c
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 deter•.
mining whether the respondent's wife . had sold the land for the
purpose of legal necessity but also for the purpose of determining D
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. E
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 F
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, con· G
tends that the High Court was in error in enlarging the scope of the
order of remand passed by the Add.itional Commissioner by direeting
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. H
·This contention is well-foifnded .and must be accepted. Section 3(1)
oftbe Act provides, to the extent material, that no 'family unit'
shall, after the com!llencement date, hold liind ip e~cess of the ceiling
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983 ) S.C .•R

areas as determined in the manner provided by the Act. By sub·
A section (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
B each member of a family unit, whether jointly or separa·
tely, shall for the purposes of determining the ceiling
area of the family unit, be deemed to be held by the
family unit.

c Explanation-A 'Family unit' means,-

. (a) a person and his spouse (or more than one
ipouse) and their minor sons ·and minor un·
married daughters, if any; or

D (b) where any spouse is dead, the surviving spouse
or gpouses, and the minor sons . and minor
unmarried daughters; or

(c) where the spouses are dead, the minor sons and
.
E 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
F be held by the famil~ 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
G 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 members of the family unit and all the lands held by
them have to be pooled together for the purpose of determining the
H 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
tli~ Court was, therefore, in error in directinll the Ttjbunal to
MAIIARASllTRA v. VYASENDRA ( Chandrachud, €!.) s
)
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 A
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 Addi-
tional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Surplus Lands Determina- B
tion Tribunal will inquire into the limited question referred to it by
the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, only.

The1e will be no order as to costs.
c
H.S.K.. Appeal allowed.

-t

•

f