LexSMT. VIRAJ KUNWAR AND ORS. versus II ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. VIRAJ KUNWAR AND ORS. v. II ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS. DECEMBER 5, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended by U.P. Act 18 of 1973-Sections 3(7) & 3( 17)-Tenure Holde.-Restlicted definition-Whether judicially separated wife can be an independent tenure holdei-Held, No, when her husband is a tenure holder. A B c Respondent No. 3, husband of the first appellant, as a tenure holder submitted his return u/s 10 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by U.P. Act 18, 1973. He was declared holder of the surplus agricultural land. Therefore, he surrendered the land to an extent of 30 bighas as irrigated land. The first appellant claimed that D she judicially separated from her husband in 1973 and the children were staying With her and the third respondent bad given 16 bighas of unir- rigated land to her; therefore, the land in their possession should be computed as a separate holding. In the writ petition, the High Court held that the first appellant was not entitled to the separate computation of the E holdings as a tenure bolder. Hence this appeal by special leave. The question raised for determination was whether the first appel- lant was a tenure bolder under the Act. The appellant contended that judicially separated wife is also inde- F pendent tenure bolder under the Act and the children living with her are entitled to have their lands tagged with her holding. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Tenure holder has been defined in Section 3 (17) of the G U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, to mean "a person who is the holder of a holding but except in Chapter III, does pot include - (a) a woman whose husband is a tenure-holder; (b) a minor child whose father or mother is a tenure-holder". The definition thus clearly excludes the wife and the minor children to be independent tenure-holders when the H 227 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A wife or the husband, as the case my be, is a tenure-holder under the same scheme of the Act. [230-D] 1.2. In computation of the ceiling area the family defined under Section 3(7) becomes relevant in computation of the members of the family to give additional land to the extent of the members of the family envisaged B therein. While aggregating the ceiling area a judicially separated wife has been excluded to be a member of the family. Section 3 (17)(a) would exclude the wife when husband is a tenure-holder - and that, therefore, she cannot be at the same time an independent tenure-holder, when the hus- band is a tenure holder, though she was judicially separated from her C husband. In this definition, the judicially separated wife has not been excluded for obvious reason that though by judicial separation the wife and the husband may not be living together, in law, still she remains to be his wife so long as there is no. divorce putting an end to the marital tie. Under those circumstances, judicially separated wife cannot be an inde- pendent tenure-holder when her husband is a tenure-holder within the D meaning of Section 3(17) of the Act. (231-D-F) Shiv Ram Misra v. Distt. Judge, Hamirpur, (1979) ALL. LJ. 213, overruled. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2737 of E 1981. F From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.79 of the Allahabad Higb Court in W.P. No. 562 of 1977. S.S. Javeli and P.R. Ramesha for the Appellants. A.B. Rohtagi and Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The first appellant is the wife of Nirmal Kumar Jain, the third G respondent. She has a minor son Sanjeev Kumar a11d daughter Snehlata. Respondent No. 3 as a tenure-holder submitted his return under Section 10 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended by U.P. Act 18, 1973 (for short;'the Act"). He was declared surplus-holder of the agricultural land. He surrendered the land of an H extent of 30 bighas 13 biswas and 3 biswansis as irrigated land ( 45 bighas VIRAJ KUNWAR v. II ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE 229 19 biswas 15 biswansis unirrigated land). The first appellant claimed that A due to family disputes in the wed-lock she and her aforesaid minor children were living separately. The third respondent had given 16 bighas, 10 biswas and the biswansis of unirrigated land to the first appellant, 12 bighas, 17 b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.