STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS versus ASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 26-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 142 . 
A 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS 
B 
v. 
ASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.6015 of2009) 
NOVEMBER 26, 2015 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings A ct, 1972: 
c s.4 - Permissible area - Calculation of - Held: Where a 
person is a member of the family, the land held by such 
person together with the land held by all the members of the 
family shall be taken into account for calculating the 
permissible area -An adult son is to be treated as a separate 
D unit and he is entitled to have separate unit of permissible 
area up to the extent of the permissible area of a family 
subject to the condition that the aggregate land of the family 
and that of a separate unit put together shall not exceed twice 
the area permissible. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: By reading the plain language of Section 4, 
it provides that the landowner may be a family, capable 
of holding property, consisting of husband, wife and 
F three minor children. As per sub-section (1) of Section 
4, the permissible area which a family consisting of 
husband, wife and up to three minor children shall be to 
the extent provided therein. It is, therefore, manifest that 
under Section 4(1) of the Act, the family is limited in terms 
.G of number of minor children, though in the definition 
clause, i.e. under Section 3(e), "family" is not limited in 
terms of minor children. The family, therefore, will be 
taken as an individual unit for the purpose of determining 
H the permissible area under the Act. Sub-section (4) of 
Section 4, however, makes it clear that every adult son 
142 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR 
143 
shall be treated as a separate unit and he shall be entitled A 
to the land up to the extent permissible to a family under 
sub-sections (1) and (2) subjectto the condition thatthe 
aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units 
put together shall not exceed twice the area permissible 
under the said sub-section. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 B 
further makes it clear that where a person is a member 
of the family, the land held by such person together with 
the land held by all the members of the family shall be 
taken into account for the purpose of calculating the 
permissible area. In other words, by reading the entire C 
provisions of Section 4, particularly sub-section (6) of 
Section 4, it is made clear that even if the respondents 
were holding property iri their respective individual 
capacity as a person, land held by them will be taken 0 
into account for the purpose of calculating the 
permissible area. The provision in its clear term provides 
one kind of an exception in case of an adult son of a 
person. In that case such adult son will be 'treated as a 
separate unit and he is entitled to have separate unit of E 
permissible area up to the extent of the permissible area 
of a family subject to the condition that the aggregate • 
land of the family and that of a separate unit put together 
shall not exceed twice the area permissible. If we read 
sub-section (4) minutely, it comes out that in the first part F 
the legislature used the word "s~parate unit" but in the 
later part the legislatures have used the word "separate 
units" as plural. The opening words of sub-section (4) 
of Section 4, starts with "every adult son of a person" 
meaning thereby even if a person has. more than one G 
adult son, all will be tre,ated as separate unit individually 
but subject to the condition that aggregate land of the · 
family and that of the separate units put together shall 
not exceed twice the area permissible under the said 
sub-section. [Paras 13, 14) [151-H; 152-A-H; 153-A-B] 
H · .. 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Gajnan and Others vs. Seth Brindaban 1971 (1) 
SCR 657: (1970) 2 SCC 360; Raj Narain Pandey 
and Others vs. Sant Prasad Tewari and Others 
. 1973 (2) SCR 835 : (1973) 2 sec 35;1ndra 
Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others, 
B 
etc. AIR (1993)SC477 :1992 (2) Suppl. SCR454 
- referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
Rajkumar Rajindra Singh vs. Union of India ILR 
1976 HP 453 - disapproved. 
Case Law Reference 
1971 (1) SCR 657 
referred to. 
Para 14 
1973 (2) SCR 835 
referred to. 
Para 14 
ILR 1976 HP 453 
disapproved. 
Para 18 
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454 
referred to. 
Para 21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
6015of2009 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2007 of the 
loligh Court o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.