STATE OF GUJARAT versus JAT LAXMANJI TALASJI

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 19-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
\ 
STAIB OF GUJARAT 
v. 
JAT LAXMANJI TALASJI 
}' -··: 
- FEBRUARY 19, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR, K.N. SINGH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.) 
Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960: s. 6(3B)-Benefit of 
enlargement of ceiling area-Availability of-Family consisting of more 
than five members including members . of specified category-
- Computation of ceiling area. - -
-- c 
Section 6(3B) or the Gujarat Agricultural -Land Ceiling -Act ~r )-
-1960 entitles a family, consisting of more than five members comprising 
a person and other members of the categories mentioned therein, viz.(i) 
minor son, (ii) widow of pre-deceased son, (iii) minor son or unmarried 
daughter of a pre-deceased son, where his or her mother is dead, to bold 
D, land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of such area 
for' each member in· excess of five, provided the_ total area does not_j 
exceed twice the _ceiling area. The ceiling area prescribed was 45 acres. T 
' 
- -- The family of the respondent landholder consisted of .nine 
· membei;i including himself, his .mother, wife,. three ?'inor sons and__,,( 
E 
three mmor daughters. The holdmg of the famtly cons_1sted of 60 acres 
-
and 4 gunthas •. 
-
The Revenue Tribunal held that the landholder was not entitled to 
the benefit of s.6(3B) of the Act. In counting the members of the family ;J... 
it excluded from consideration the mother and three minor daughters of 
F 
the landholder on the view that the applicant and his wife would count 
" ..._._ as one unit and his minor sons would count as four units and ruled that 
·there were only five members in the family for the purpose of counting 
the unit, notwithstanding the fact that the family consisted of nine 
-- members and also comprised or other members belonging to the speci-
G 
- fied category. 
r' -
In the writ petition, the High Court held that the landholder's f 
family consisted of nine members inasmuch as his mother and his wife 
as also his minor daughters were members of his family. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended for the appeUant-
H 
Slat~ that in applying the test whether or not the family consisted of five 
1068 
1 
I 
..... 
1 
f 
' 
' 
.. 
' 
'r 
~ 
\. . 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. J.L. TALASJI 
1069 
members regard must be had only to the members of family belonging 
A 
to the specified category, namely minor sons, in so far as the composi-
tion of the family of the landholder was concerned, so to say, that tbe 
landholder, his wife and his three minor sons were the only five mem-
bers of the family for the purpose ofs. 6(3B) of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
B 
HELD: 1.1 Two tests must be satisfied cumulatively for being 
eligible to claim the benefit of s. 6(38) of the Gujarat Agricultural Land 
Ceiling Act, 1960: (1) the size of the family should exceed five, (2J it 
must consist of members one or more of whom belong to one or other of 
the specified categories. All the ingredients of s. 6(3B) are satisfied in c 
the instant case. [1074G) 
1.2 The expression "family" has not been defined in the Act. The 
Court has, therefore, to go by the concept by family as it is commonly 
understood, meaning, a group of persons consisting of parents and their 
otTsprings living together in one household. In that view, that family of D 
the landholder consisted of eight members including himself, his wife, 
three minor sons and three minor daughters. The family of the land-
holder thus consists of more than five members. The family also 
includes persons of one of the specified categories viz., the minor 
SODS. [1074A-C, E-F) 
E 
2. It cannot be said that in ascertaining whether or not the pre-
condition is satisfied only the members of the specified category should 
be taken into account. For, to do so would be to kill the letter as well as 
the spirit of the benevolent provisions aimed at relieving the distress of 
family members subject to one or other of the socio-economic handi-
caps. [1075D-E; 1071C-D) 
F 
3. Computation of the extent of the additional land must be made. 
by applying the formula embodied in s. 6(3B). On a trll!' interpretation 
of the provision "each member in excess of five" must of logical neces-
sity mean each "such" member of the specified handicapped category 
viz. three minor sons. Under the circumstances, for each minor son in G 
excess of the five members, the holder was entitled to one-fifth of the 
ceiling area in excess of the prescribed ceiling. That is to say he was 
entitled to three

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.