STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VYASENDRA

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
VYASENDRA 
May 3, 1983 
[Y. V. CHANDRACIIUD C. J. AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961-
s. 4(1)-Scope of-Land owned and held by wife as separate proper'y or strldhan 
. property-Deemed to be held by the family uni(· 
Whether the land owned and held by the wife as her Separate property 
can be clubbed together with the lands held by her husband and the other 
members of the family for the purpose of computing the ceiling on the holding 
of the •family unit' under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on 
Holdings) Act, 1961. 
Section 4(1) of the said Act provides that for the purpose of dets:rmining 
the ceilitig area of the family unit all land held by each member of a family 
unit, whether jointly or separately, shall be deemed to be held by the family 
unit. Explanation to s. 4(1) states that 'Family unit' means a person and his 
spouSe and their 1ninor sons and minor unmarried daughters, if any. 
) 
Respondent's claim that certain land which stood in the name of his 
wife was her separate property was not accepted by the Surplus Lands Deter-
mination Tribunal, which included that land in the total holding of the respon-
dent. Before the Additional Commissioner, the respondent contended that the 
land which was sold by his wifr after the notified d<lte was wrongly included 
in the holding of the family unit, The Additional Commissioner remanded 
the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh inquiry into the question as to whether 
the sale effected by the Respondent's wife was supported by legal iiecessity. 
On a writ petition filed by the respondent the High Court directed the Tribunal 
to enquire also into the question as to whether the land which was in the name 
of the respondent's ~ife was her separate property. On appeal, the appellant 
contended that the High Court was in error in enlarging the scope of the order 
of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner . 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: AU land held by each member of the family unit, whether 
jointly or separately, is to be deemed to be held by the family unit, for the· 
Purpose of determining the ceiling area which the family uflit may retain. The 
circumstance that the land held by a constituent members of the family unit is 
separate property or stridhan property is a mattei- of no conseq,u~nce what~q ... 
I 
A 
B 
c ' 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME cOURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 s.c.R. 
ever for the purpose' of determining the ceiling area which the family unit 
A 
can retain. [4 E-G] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
l1 
In the instant case the respondent, his wife and their minor sons and 
minor unmarried daughters, if any, are all co.nstituent members of the family 
unit and all the lands held by, thein have to be ·pooled together for the.purpose 
of detennining the ceiling area which is permissible to the family unit: The 
nature or character of their interest in the land held by them ·is irrelevant for 
computing the ceiling area which the family ullit may retain. [4 G·H] 
C1v11 APPELLATB JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4264 of 
1983. 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the-25th April, 1979 of the Bombay High. Court in Writ Petition 
No. 1117of1979. 
V. S. Desai and M. N. Shroff with him for the Appellant. 
Nemo for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. A question frequently arises under the 
Agricultural Ceiling Acts passed by the State Legislatures as to 
whether the land owned and held by a wife as her separate property 
can be clubbed together with the lands held by her husband and the· 
other members of the family for the purpose of computing the 
ceiling on the holding of the 'family unit'. That question arises in 
this appeal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lauds (Ceiling on 
Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961, (The Act'), 
The respondent Vyasendra filed a return under section 12 of 
the Act showing the. lands held by him and mentioning that certain 
lands which stood in the name of his wife were her separate pro-
perty. The Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal held under 
section 21 of t_he Act that the total holding of the respondent, 
including the land which was alleged to be the separate property 
of his wife, was 67 .acres and 34 gun thas. 
Since the ceiling under the 
Act is 54 acres, the respondent was asked to surrender an area 
admeasuring l3 acres and 34 gunthas. 
The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, call

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