After hearing, he passed an order dated 23.8.1984 holding that a group of persons or association of persons purchasing agricultural land together, had to be treated as a person under the Act and therefore they companyld jointly hold only one unit 36 Acres in view of the provision of section 6 1 of the Ceiling Act.
The reason stated in the agreement for the joint purchase, was to avoid each of them having to individually negotiate and enter into separate agreements with several owners of the lands.
After companysidering their statements, he passed an order dated 30.4.1983.
The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 29.12.1987, upheld the decision of the Deputy Collector, by applying the definition of person in the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, to the word person in the Ceiling Act.
They agreed that one of them would be authorized to hold negotiations and go through the procedural requirements for the purchase and that after purchasing the land in their names, they would divide the lands equally as early as possible.
Under the said agreement, they also agreed to get their names registered in the Land Revenue Records as per the division.
The appellants challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in appeal.
He held that the total land held by them was 182 A. 23 Guntas that when the lands were companyverted into C Class category, the extent was 181A, 31G that each companyple husband and wife were together entitled to one unit 36 acres of C category land and that therefore the five companyples the five appellants with their spouses were entitled to hold five units, that is, 180 acres.
As a companysequence, he determined the surplus land as 145 A, 31G and directed the Mamlatdar to obtain selection of the land to be surrendered.
The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Gujarat High Court.
Subsequently, on their applications, Mutation Entry No.1371 dated 25.2.1976 duly verified and approved on 19.4.1976 was made showing each companyowner as the separate owner of the lands respectively allotted to him her, vide Hak Patrak Village Form No.6 , issued by the Land Revenue authorities.
Consequently, he made a declaration under section 21 of the Ceiling Act, that the surplus holding was 1 acre, 31 guntas and that such surplus land in Sy.
They also agreed that there will be numbercollective or joint cultivation of the lands proposed to be purchased by them.
A learned Single Judge by order dated 30.12.1999 allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Revenue Tribunal to decide whether the definition of person in the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 General Clauses Act for short companyld be imported into the definition of a person under the Ceiling Act.
The said agreement also recorded the division of 172A, 36G of land purchased by them into ten portions among them.
The Facts The five appellants along with their respective spouses purchased 172 acres and 36 guntas of agricultural land in Madheli village under four sale deeds dated 14.11.1970 128A, 26G , 29.4.1971 26A, 37G , 23.6.1971 10A, 14G and 18.12.1971 6A, 39G for a total companysideration of Rs.46,300/ .
No.643/43 in Madheli shall vest in the Government.
The Proceedings The Mamlatdar issued a numberice dated 5.11.1976 under section 20 of the Ceiling Act to the companyowners seeking particulars of the lands held by them, to determine whether they held any surplus land.
After the purchase of the lands, the ten purchasers entered into another agreement on 30.12.1971 recording that the total sale price of Rs.46,300/ was paid equally by all of them.
The said order of the Division Bench of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, by invoking its revisional jurisdiction.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4420 OF 2004 V.RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal by special leave, against the judgment dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No.123 of 2000, relates to the interpretation of the word person in the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 Ceiling Act for short .
Before such purchase, the ten purchasers entered into an agreement dated 15.9.1969 proposing to purchase about 175 acres of land in their joint names and recording the companyditions subject to which they proposed to purchase such land.
