Against the decision of the Tribunal they filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay under Article 227 of the Constitution Before the High Court the case of family settlement was number pressed but it was companytended that since the one third interest in the family property which companyld have been allotted to the share of Sham Rao had he demanded a partition immediately before his death had devolved in equal shares on his heirs i.e. his wife, mother and son, the surviving members of the family ceased to hold the family property as members of a family and, therefore, each of them was entitled to be allowed to retain one unit of the ceiling area under the Ceiling Act.
The remaining extent of land measuring in all 222.32 acres was declared as surplus land which had to be surrendered under the Ceiling Act.
The High Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to pass fresh orders accordingly in the light of its decision.
As required by the Ceiling Act, Narayan Rao filed a declaration on behalf of himself, his mother Sulochanabai and his grandmother Gangabai alias Taibai before the Sub Divisional Officer, Saoner stating that they held in all 305 49 acre of agricultural land and that under a family arrangement entered into on March 30, 1957 they were holding the lands in distinct and separate shares, Narayan Rao holding one half and the other two holding one fourth share each and that each of them was entitled to retain 96 acres which was the maximum extent of land which a person in that area companyld hold after the Ceiling Act came into force.
The High Court upheld the above plea.
1441 Of 1971 From the Judgment Order dated 26.4.1970 Of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No, 163/1967.
He further held that the family was entitled to 96 acres of land out of the said 304 57 acres on the appointed day and as the family had alienated after August 4, 1959 about 44 acres of land in companytravention of Section 10 1 of the Ceiling Act, it companyld retain only 51.16 acres.
The Ceiling Act came into force on January 26, 1962 as per numberification issued by the State Government under Section 1 3 thereof.
That one third share devolved in equal shares on Narayan Rao, Sulochanabai and Gangabai alias Taibai each inheriting one ninth share of the family property.
The Ceiling Act as its long title indicates was enacted for the purpose of imposing a maximum limit or ceiling on the holding of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra to provide for the acquisition and distribution on land held in excess of such ceiling and for making provisions regarding a matters companynected with the purposes aforesaid.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Ceiling Act provided as follows 3 In order to provide for the more equitable distribution of agricultural land amongst the peasantry of the State of Maharashtra and in particular, to provide that landless persons are given land for personal cultivation ,on the companymencement of this Act there shall be imposed to the extent, and in the manner hereinafter provided, a maximum limit or ceiling on the holding of agricultural land throughout the States.
It further held that Narayan Rao and Sulochanabai were each entitled to 4/9th share of the property and each of them was entitled to retain for himself or herself, as the case may be one unit of ceiling area out of his or her 4/9th share in the family property and only the surplus was liable to be surrendered.
On January 26, 1962 the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act came into force.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer, Narayan Rao, his mother and grandmother filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal questioning the companyrectness of the said decision and that appeal was dismissed.
It held that since the one ninth share of Gangabai alias Taibai, the mother of Sham Rao did number exceed the ceiling area, she companyld retain all the land belonging to her.
They, how ever, companytinued to live together enjoying the family properties as before.
The Ceiling Act also made provisions for the distribution of surplus land acquired from persons who were holding in excess of the ceiling amongst the landless and other persons.
The imposition of ceiling on the holding of agricultural land was found to be necessary in the interests of the agrarian economy of the State.
The State Government has filed this appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court.
The Sub Divisional officer after enquiry held that the alleged family settlement was number true, Narayan Rao, his.
Sham Rao died on June 15, 1957 after the companying into force of the Hindu Successions Act, 1926 hereinafter referred to as the Act and on his death his interest in the companyarcenary property devolved on his Son, wife and mother in equal shares under section 6 of the Act, such interest being the share that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the family property had taken place immediately before his death irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or number.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal NO.
mother and his grandmother were joint in estate and companystituted a family within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2 1 of the Ceiling Act and the family companyld number hold agricultural land in excess of one unit of the ceiling area, The Sub Divisional Officer came to the companyclusion that the total area held by the said family on the appointed day was 313.57 acres, and as the said lands were situated in different villages and the ceiling area in all the villages except in Chanakpur village was 96 acres and in Chanakpur village the ceiling area was 108 acres, the total land held by the family was to be companyverted into 304.57 acres for purposes of the Ceiling Act.
In order to examine the companyrectness of the companytentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to refer briefly first to the relevant provisions of the Ceiling Act, as they stood on the appointed day, i.e. the date on which the said Act came into force.
His wife Sulochanabai and his mother Gangabai alias Tribai Were also the members of that family.
The said family owned extensive properties which included agricultural lands situated in fourteen villages.
S. Desai and M.N. Shroff for the Appellant, R.Lalit and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondents, The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by VENKATARAMIH, J. Sham Rao Bhagwant Rao Deshmukh and his son, Narayan Rao Were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of law.
