VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (D) THROUGH SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 29-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
 VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (D)
THROUGH SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE
AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6006 of 2009)
AUGUST 29, 2019
[K. M. JOSEPH AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,
1961: ss.8, 10, 11, 21, 44B – Ceiling limits – Partition Deed dated
31.01.1970 (duly registered on 1.07.1970) executed between
appellant, his wife, minor son and three minor daughters in respect
of agricultural land of HUF – On 19.11.1976, 59 acres and 35
guntas of land of appellant declared surplus by SDO – Appeal
filed by appellant, his wife, minor son and elder daughter – Two
other minor daughters did not appeal being satisfied with the order
of SDO as no part of land that devolved upon them by means of
partition deed was declared surplus – State filed cross objections
challenging the exclusion of land of the two daughters but did not
implead them – Appellate authority allowed the objections holding
that the partition deed though before the cut off date was against
the principles of Hindu Law to the extent that it gave share to minor
daughters in ancestral land – Whether the partition deed registered
prior to cut-off date of 26.09.1970 was against the principles of
Hindu Law to the extent it gave a share to minor daughters in the
land and on that basis, was partition deed of no effect in law –
Held (per Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.): The relevant date of 26.9.1970
and 2.10.1975 giving window of five years for the State to take
action and prevent any dubious transaction during this period of
time cannot be expanded to an unlimited prior period of time – In
the instant case, the Partition Deed was registered prior to the cut-
off date of 26.09.1970 – Execution of Partition Deed which has
the effect of a gift would not nullify the effect of the deed as the
provision made out for the daughters out of ancestral property
would be in compliance of the pious obligation – Hindu Law
provides for provision for marriage of unmarried daughter out of
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 913
913
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
ancestral property – Therefore, view of SDO regarding exclusion
of land of two elder daughters for determining surplus land was
correct and is restored – (Per K.M. Joseph, J.): Collector, when in
the course of inquiry under s.18 of the Act, has before it, materials
to show that an ostensible transfer or a partition is nothing but a
sham and a person or a member of the family continues to hold
the land as on the commencement day, it would be well within his
powers to act as per the mandate of the Act and include the land
for the purpose of calculating the ceiling limit – Collector is
endowed with the powers of the civil court in the matter of both
summoning and enforcing attendance of any person – He has
power also to compel production of any document – In a sham
transaction, be it sale or partition, though it has all the trappings
of a transfer or a partition and it may be registered as such, in
effect, the transferor continues to be the owner – In the instant
case, the father continued to be the owner of the land as title had
not passed to the two daughters by a legally valid instrument –
Even crop statement of relevant time also showed the cultivation
by father alone or along with daughters – The Partition was
unnatural for the reason that under the extant Hindu Law,
daughters were not entitled to a share and women were not entitled
to partition – Thus the Partition was indeed not only unnatural
but it was not intended to have effect – The property continued
with the father in which case it would be property held by him even
on the commencement date rendering it liable to be included in the
account of the family unit – Held: In view of difference of opinion,
the matter placed before the Chief Justice of India for referring
the matter to larger bench – Reference to larger bench.
Referring the matter to larger Bench in view of difference
of opinion, the Court
HELD:
PER SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1.  Deemed Fiction:
1.1 The legislation in question is a beneficial piece of
legislation and, indeed, must be given the widest amplitude, the
object being to distribute land among the landless.  In giving
wider amplitude to such legislation, the Court should not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
interpret the words of the statute beyond its plain reading
reflecting the intent of the legislation.  The provisions have to
be read, to

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