CAV Judgment

1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 16.04.1990 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 490/89.

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the respondents herein were holding the agricultural lands to the extent of 237 Acres 35 Gunthas situated at Village Didhadia, Taluka Halvad, District Surendranagar. The proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 came to be initiated in case of the respondents herein by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad in Case No.368/76-77. After giving due hearing to the respondents, vide order dated 10.07.1985, the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad, concluded that the total holding of the respondents was 237 Acres 35 Gunthas and that they were entitled to retain four units, i.e. one for Jivubha Ghelubha Zala himself, one each for his two major sons Janaksinh and Ajitsinh and one unit for his widow mother Majirajba. It was held that thus, the total permissible land, which could be retained by the respondents, was 216 Acres and 21 Acres 35 Gunthas was liable to be declared as surplus agricultural land. However, after considering various factors, the learned Mamlatdar decided that the respondents landholders could retain 216 Acres 37 Gunthas and declared 20 Acres 38 Gunthas as surplus land. The said order came to be challenged by way of an appeal by the petitioner State before the learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Appeal No.4/88-89. The learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), by the order dated 29.04.1989, allowed the appeal of the petitioner State and modified the order dated 10.07.1985 passed by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad. It was held that the total holding of the respondents was 288 Acres 31 Gunthas and that they were entitled to only three units i.e. one for Jivubha Ghelubha Zala himself and one each for his two major sons Janaksinh and Ajitsinh. It was, thus, held that 162 Acres land could be retained by the respondents and the land to the extent of 126 Acres 31 Gunthas was declared surplus. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred the Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 490/89 before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 16.04.1990, the learned Tribunal, after calling for the records and hearing the parties, set aside the order dated 29.04.1989 of the learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Appeal No.4/88-89 and upheld the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad dated 10.07.1985 holding that the respondents were entitled to four units amounting to 216 Acres 37 Gunthas and 20 Acres 38 Gunthas was declared as surplus land. Aggrieved, the petitioner State of Gujarat has filed the present Special Civil Application.

3. The learned AGP Dr. Pooja Ashar appearing for the petitioner State submits that there was an error in calculating the number of units, to which, the respondents are entitled to. She submits that in the present case, the respondents were entitled to only three units i.e. 162 Acres and therefore, 126 Acres 31 Gunthas was the surplus land which should have been declared as excess land in the holding of the respondents. The learned AGP submits that while the learned Mamlatdar has calculated four units, i.e. one unit for Jivubha Ghelubha Zala, one each for his two major sons Janaksinh and Ajitsinh and one unit for his widow mother Majirajba, the same has resulted into miscarriage of justice and the erroneous calculation in respect of surplus land being held by the respondents. The learned AGP further submits that the learned Deputy Collector, vide order dated 29.04.1989, has rightly decided the entitlement of the respondents herein while declaring that there was surplus land holding of 126 Acres 31 Gunthas by the respondents and the same was ordered to be vested with the State Government. The learned AGP further submits that from the records of the case, it is clear that the respondents are holding a total of 288 Acres 31 Gunthas land. However, the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad has mistakenly held that the total holding of the respondents was only 237 Acres 35 Gunthas. It is submitted that the land in question is in the name of Rana Jivubha, who was the tenant in respect of the subject lands in question as per the revenue records and not his mother. Further, two of his sons are major and therefore, were entitled to one unit each. The learned AGP, therefore, submits that the learned Deputy Collector has correctly held that the tenant is entitled to three units which would come to 162 Acres and therefore, remaining 126 Acres 31 Gunthas is required to be declared surplus as per the law. She submits that the learned Mamlatdar has committed an error in considering the land holding of the respondents as 237 Acres 35 Gunthas and further granting one unit for mother, one unit for son and two units for grandsons and thereby, holding that the respondents were entitled to four units totaling to 216 Acres and thereby, declaring 21 Acre 35 Gunthas as surplus land. The learned AGP further submits that the learned Deputy Collector has also correctly held that ½ share from the holding of Pratapba, which was being held and managed by the respondents, was not considered by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad into the total holding of the respondents herein which has led to erroneous calculation of lesser land holding in the hands of the respondents. She submits that the learned Deputy Collector has correctly included ½ share of the land holding of Pratapba, who was the aunt of the respondents, in the total holding of the respondents while calculating the surplus land being held by the respondents. She submits that there is no error in the calculation in respect of the holding of the respondents by the learned Deputy Collector vide order dated 29.04.1989 and the same be upheld. In support of her contentions, the learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in 1994 (1) GLH 341 and the order dated 14.10.2013 passed in the Special Civil Application No.7337 of 1997.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Manan K. Paneri appearing for the respondents submits that the orders passed by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling) and the learned Tribunal are just and proper. It is submitted that the learned Mamlatdar & ALT, after hearing the parties and perusing the records of the case as well as taking into consideration the order dated 05.07.1984 passed by the learned Tribunal, has correctly concluded that the respondents are entitled to four units of land. He submits that the order dated 05.07.1984 of the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA.90/84 had clearly held that the respondents were entitled to four units under the Land Ceiling Act and the matter was remanded back only to verify as to whether the widow mother Majirajba, who was entitled to one unit, was alive as on 01.04.1976. The learned counsel further submits that by cogent reasons, it was proved that the widow mother Majirajba was alive as on 01.04.1976 and therefore, she was entitled to one unit under the Land Ceiling Act. He submits that therefore, there is no dispute in respect of number of units which the respondents are entitled to as per the orders passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) has committed an error in including the individual land share of Pratapba, the aunt of the respondents into the land holding of the respondents herein. He submits that the respondents herein were not at all legally entitled to any of her share and therefore, it was erroneous to include her holding in the lands held by the respondents herein. He submits that the learned Deputy Collector has erred on two counts. Firstly, by holding that the widow mother was not entitled to separate unit and secondly by including the lands held by the aunt of the respondents in their land holding. He submits that therefore, the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector has resulted into miscarriage of justice declaring that the respondents herein were holding 288 Acres 31 Gunthas of land and that the respondents were entitled to retain only 162 Acres, while 126 Acres 31 Gunthas was surplus land holding with the respondents. He submits that in view of the law laid down by this Court in various decisions, the order dated 10.07.1985 passed by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling) as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 16.04.1990 are just and proper. He submits that the present Special Civil Application be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel Mr. H. M. Jadeja appearing for the respondent No.1.5 has adopted the submissions urged by the learned counsel Mr. Manan K. Paneri for the respondents.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

7. The legal position in respect of scope and purport of Section 6(3C) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 is well settled by catena of decisions of this Court. Section 6 provides for separate holding for the members of the family as well as major sons therein. The word "son" is given a plain meaning and has to be read in the context of a living parent. The concept of patriarchal form of society has been taken into consideration while framing such provisions. The Legislature has given an extra ceiling unit for holding the land for the major son in the family or joint family for the said purpose. It is, therefore, quite obvious that a family or a joint family consisting of widow mother and her major son would definitely be covered to get the benefit of Section 6(3C) of the Act. It has to be understood in the context of a living parent and such living parent could either be such a son's mother or father. If either parent is living, a major son in the family will be regarded as a son. The family unit for all purposes will have to be treated as being headed by a mother in absence of a father and therefore, when there is a widow mother in the family, a son has to be recognized as a son of the mother who is living. Thus, it has been conclusively held that the existence of male parent alone is not necessary for the purpose of giving the benefit of Section 6(3C) to the major son irrespective of the size of the family and they all will be entitled to the benefit of Section 6(3C). If a family consists of the mother and her major son, then they both will be entitled to separate ceiling unit in terms of Section 6(3C). In the present case, there is no dispute that the mother of the respondent No.1 was living as on 01.04.1976, which has been established by cogent evidence on record. Therefore, in the present case, the respondents were entitled to four units being one for the mother, one for her son and two for her major grandsons. Thus, they are entitled to retain 216 Acres 37 Gunthas.

8. Further, the learned Deputy Collector has included the land holding of Pratapba to the extent of 50 Acres 32 Gunthas in the land holding of the respondents herein. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that this independent holding of Pratapba could be included in the land holding of the respondents. The authorities below have considered the revenue records and the same shows that Pratapba, who is a widow of Jilubha Ajubha and is the aunt of the respondents herein, had land holding of 101 Acres 24 Gunthas. The respondents herein were not entitled to any of this land holding and no such land holding has come to the respondents after her death, which has been stated by the Talati in his deposition before the authorities below. Therefore, the inclusion of the land holding of 50 Acres 32 Gunthas being the share of Pratapba could not have been included in the land holding of the respondents herein. The learned Tribunal has correctly reduced the land holding of Pratapba to the extent of 50 Acres 32 Gunthas from the land holding of the respondents herein, which had been erroneously included by the learned Deputy Collector by the order dated 29.04.1989. The petitioner State herein has also not been able to prove by any documentary or any other evidence on record that the respondents have received Pratapba's share of 50 Acres 32 Gunthas.

9. The judgments relied upon by the learned AGP are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10. In view of the observations herein above, the order dated 10.07.1985 passed by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT (Ceiling), Halvad, as well as the order dated 16.04.1990 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are just and proper and in consonance with the law laid down and the documents on record. No interference is called for in the impugned orders. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.