UTTAM CHAND versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1048 · Decided: 14-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
1048 
UTTAM CHAND 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
February 14, 1980 
[S. Mu!l.TAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling of Holdings) Act 1961, Seclions; 
2(11), 2(22), 8, 10 and 12-Scope-Only those transfers nlade at any tifne 
on or after 4-8-1959 would be hit by the Act. 
The appellant in his return filed before the Deputy Collector had shoWD 
the total lands in his possession to be 370 a.cres and 34 gunthas. 
Proceedings 
under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 
were taken against him in order to determine whether the return filed 
was 
correct or not. It was alleged by the appellant that some time in the year 
1956 there was a partition between the appellant and his nephews a.s a. 
result of which his family got 202 acres of land. The appellant had scrld 
51 acres· of land to other persons before the Act came into force and that 
he 
ga.ve some land to his adopted son in lieu of the latter's share and that 
the adopted son thereafter gave 93.25 acres of land to his mother 
under 
Civil Court decree. All these transactions took place some 
time 
in 
the 
year 1956. The Collector aflcr examining the return found that the 
total 
land o\vned by the appellant was 118 a.cres 36 gunthas and the excess 
was 
only 4 acres 36 gunthas which could be taken over under the 
Act. The 
Commissioner calle<l 
for 
the 
records 
and 
interfered 
suo moto. After 
making some enquiry, he held that the land declared by the appellant in his 
return fa.r exceeded the ceiling limit and in computing the total lands owned 
by the appellant he took into account even the lands which had been giv.en 
by the adopted son to his mother, the wife of the appellant. 
The appellant filed a writ petition against the order of the Commissioner 
in the High Court which refused to interfere on the ground that the transfer 
of the 
land 
in favour 
of the adopted sons was held to be collusive as 
also the decree. 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that under the provisions of the Act, land whicl1 was received by his wife 
from the adopted son was her personal property and could not be included 
in the ceiling of the appell<~nt and that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction 
to add that land and treat the same as the land of the appellant and to set 
aside the order of the Deputy Collector. 
On behalf of the respondent it 
was contended that the word 'person' defined in section 2(22) of the Act 
includes family a.nd that 'family' as defined in section 2 ( 11) 
includes, 
a: 
Hindu Undivided family, and in the case of other persons, a group or unit, 
the members of which by custom or usage are joint in an estate or possession 
or residence. 
Allowjng the appeal. 
H 
HELD : I. The judgment of the High Court is set aside as also that of 
the Comn1issioner and that the judgment of the Deputy Collector restored. 
[1052B] 
,
• 
--""' 
.) 
• 
UTTAM CHAND v. MAHARASHTRA (Faw! Ali,!.) 
1049 
2. The Act clearly exempts the land which may have been acquired or 
A. 
tramferred prior to 4-8-1959. 
Section 8, 10 and 12 whirh deal 
with the 
subject clearly enjoin that only those transfers would be hit by the Act which 
are made at any time on or after 4-8-1959. 
[105\A] 
3. There was neither nny pleading nor any case made out either before 
the Deputy Collector or even before the Commissioner to indica.te that the 
transfer of the land in favour of the adopted son and the transfer by the 
B· 
adOpted son in favour of his mother were collusive or tainted 
by fraud. 
Both these transactions took place as far back as 1956 th3ot is to say 5 years 
before the Act came into force. 
[1050G-H] 
4. The High Court was not justified in presuming that the transfer made 
by the appellant in favour of his adopted son towards his sha.re 
and 
the 
transfer by the adopted son to his mother was either collusive or fraudulent. 
C 
There v:as neither any foundation in the pleadings nor any 
evidence 
to 
support this conjecture of the High Court. 
[1051A-C] 
5. Sections 2(11), 2(12) are of no assistance a.s Section 6 takes within 
its fold lands belonging to the owner, or his family as a single unit and 
is not meant to cover the separate or individual property of a member of 
the family which is self-acquired property and cannot be clubbed together 
D 
with 'the lMid of the owner or his family. 
To begin \\1ith, the Act 
merely 
intended to include the land wit

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