STATE OF BIHAR versus SHRI K. M. ZUBEI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 376 · Decided: 09-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
SHRI KM. ZUBER! AND OTHERS 
FEBRUARY 9, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land laws: 
C 
Bihar Land Ref omis (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of 
Surplus Land) Act, ·1961: Section 2(ee) Expln.-II, (g) and (k). 
'Family'-Ceiling area-Separate additional unit of land for adult 
son-Detennination of-Personal law not applicable-No distinction between 
Hindu, Mohammedan and Cluistian-Not entitled to separate additional 
D· unit-However, would be entitled to separate unit if a raiyat and had become 
a land holde1~Act secular in nature. 
The respondent - Land owner was shown to be holding surplus land. 
However, he filed an objection claiming that he was entitled to one addi-
E tional unit for his adult son. This was rejected by the Additional Sub-
Divisional Officer. The respondent appealed to the Collector but the 
appeal was dismissed for default. The respondent carried the matter in 
revision to the Board of Revenue. The Board ·or Revenue took into con-
sideration the amendments to the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling 
area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and came to the con-
F 
clusion that personal law of the respondent-land holder was not required 
to be taken into consideration for determination of the holdings. The 
Board further held that since the adult son of a land holder governed by 
the Mitakshara Law was entitled to a separate unit, the decision should 
be identical with regard to the respondent-land holder governed by 
G Mohammedan Law. Accordingly, the Board allowed the revision and called 
upon the authorities to re-determine the ceiling. The appellant filed a writ 
petition in the High Court against the aforesaid order, which was dis-
missed. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellant preferred 
the present app.eal. 
H 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under the Act there 
376 
~ 
/ 
\ 
\ 
-
STATE v. K.M. ZUBERI 
377 
was no provision which conferred additional unit in case of a land holder A 
governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law on the adult son; and that 
the High Court's conclusion that an adult son of a Mohammedan land 
holder would be entitled to additional unit was unsustainable in law. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that if the adult son 
of a land holder governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law was entitled 
to an additional unit there was no justification in denying the same to the 
adult son of a land holder governed by the Mohammedan Law. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The statutory definition of "family" in Section 2(ee) of 
the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of 
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 does not conceive of any personal law applicable 
to the said family and, therefore, no personal law can be taken into 
consideration for determination of th.e ceiling surplus with the land holder 
B 
c 
under the Act. [381-B-C] 
D 
1.2. The various provisions unequivocally indicate that under the Act 
the ceiling area is required to be determined of a "family" as defined in 
Section 2(ee) of the Act and, therefore, the land holder, whose ceiling is 
going to be determined may be either a person, his or her spouse, and E 
minor children. A major child whether belonging to a Hindu family or a 
Mohammedan or Christian family is not conceived of getting an additional 
unit while determining the ceiling area of a land holder. A major son of a 
Hindu can get an independent ceiling determined provided he is raiyat 
within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and has become a land holder 
within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Act but not as a successor to the 
F 
land holder whose ceiling is being determined on the ground that he has 
a legal right in the property by virtue of birth. [385-A-C] 
2. Under the Act no distinction has been maintained between Hindu, 
Mohammedan and Christian for determination of the ceiling area in the G 
hands of the land holder. Whether governed by Mitakshara Law or 
governed by Mohammedan Law, no additional unit is given to an adult 
son of the land holder. [385-D; E-F] 
Amamul Hasan Choudhary v. State of Bihar & Others, (1982) BBCJ 
208,approved. 
II 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4336 of 
B 
c 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.86 of the Patna High 
Court in W.P. No. 2175of1980. 
Mr. Pramod Swari.lp for the Appellant. 
Mr. Raju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.