LexSUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 589 SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 546 of 2004) AUGUST 30, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] A B Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - s. 2 (8) and Schedule II - Notification uls. 4 of Land C Acquisition Act - For acquisition of the land belonging to Hindu Joint Family for the purpose of 1986 Act - For acquisition, whether the limit prescribed under Schedule II would be applicable to the holdings of Hindu Joint Family as one unit or to the holding of each coparcener of the joint family D as one unit - Held: In view of s. 2(8) and s. 3(35) of Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, Hindu Joint Family is covered under the expression 'person' - Therefore the limit prescribed under Schedule II has to be considered in the light of the holdings of Hindu Joint Family and not holding of the E individual coparcener of the family - Definition of 'person' given uls. 2(22) of Land Ceiling on Holdings Act is not applicable to s. 2(8) - Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - s. 2(22) - Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 - s. 3 (35) - Land Acquisition Act, 1898 - s. 4. Words and Phrases - 'Person' - Meaning of, in the context of s.2(8) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 and s. 3(35) of Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 Notification u/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was issued by respondent-State notifying acquisition of certain agricultural land under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The appellants F G 589 H 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the Notification. They took the plea that holdings of each coparcener of the Hindu Joint Family would be calculated as one unit and thus the total holding of the appellants' joint family was within the limit prescribed under B Schedule II of the 1986 Act and, therefore, could not be acquired under the 1986 Act r/w. the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the expression 'person' occurring in the definition of 'holding' u/s. 2(8) of the 1986 Act would include a Hindu c Joint Family and thus the limit prescribed under Schedule II has to be seen in the light of holding of the Hindu Joint Family and not as holdings of individual coparcener. In the instant appeal, the appellants contended that D in view of s. 2(22) and (11) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, the expression · 'person' would include individual · coparceners constituting the Hindu Joint Family. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On appreciation of the records of the instant case and in view of s. 2(22) and (11) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1961, the expressions 'person' and 'family' as contained F in the Act of 1961 have no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The object and purpose of enactment of the Act of 1961 is completely different from that of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 which would be G applicable to the instant case. The Legislature, while enacting the Act of 1986, incorporated the definition of expression 'holding' u/s. 2(8) and was fully conscious of the fact that there is a definition of expression 'person' in the Act of 1961, but despite the said fact, it did not H incorporate the said definition of expression 'person' SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR v. STATE OF 591 MAHARASHTRA given in the Act of 1961. Since the expression 'person' A is not defined in the Act of 1986, in order to ascertain the definition of the same, the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 has to be referred to. [Para 14 15) (596-D-F-H] 2. Sectfon 3(35) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 defines persons to "include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated B or not." In that event, if the position and standard as enunciated ii'! the legislation of the 1904 Act is adopted, C it has to be held that the expression 'person' would include the body of individuals, meaning thereby, that the Hindu Joint Family is a body of individuals and is covered under the expression 'person' mentioned in Section 2(8) of the 1986 Act. [Para 16) [597-A-B] D 3. Once the Hindu Joint Family is held to be a person, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.