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

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 19-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (DEAD)
THROUGH SMT. SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE
AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6006 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, 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 since 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: It is clear from the provisions of the 1961 Act that transfers
or partitions of land made in anticipation of or in order to avoid or
defeat the 1972 Amending Act were to be ignored in calculating
ceiling limits – Under s.21, the Collector has to make a declaration
as to entitlement of a person or family unit to hold within the ceiling
area – Further, s.44B excludes pleaders from appearing on behalf
of any party in any of the proceedings under the 1961 Act – This is
for the reason that the Collector has to determine on the facts of
each case, based on returns filed if any, as to what areas are to be
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 913
913
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
excluded so far as determination of ceiling of a person or family
unit is concerned – If it were to be held that the Collector could go
into a trial as to genuineness of a particular partition deed, even
though it is before the cut-off date, it would extend the legal fiction
that is limited to transfers and partitions made after the cut-off date;
and secondly, if a period even before the cut -off date can be
considered, it would render the cut-off date otiose, as then in all
cases the Collector could go into whether a particular transfer or
partition has been entered into to avoid the effect of the 1972
Amendment Act, which is an enquiry restricted only to transfers
and partitions which take place on or after 26.09.1970 upto the
commencement date – Also, if the Collector were to substitute himself
as a Civil Court deciding a Civil Suit, it would be absolutely essential
for a person or family unit to engage a pleader of his choice to
argue all the ramifications that his case may have, both in fact and
in law – In fact, a Civil Court alone would have the jurisdiction to
decide a question as to whether a partition deed entered into before
the cut- off date is or is not sham, which would involve a declaration
that the partition be declared void – The 1961 Act, therefore, bars
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only insofar as transfers and
partitions are entered into on or after 26.09.1970 and before the
commencement date, and not to transfers and partitions that take
place before the cut-off date – This apart, once it is clear that the
daughters are affected by virtue of the partition deed being held to
be non est in law by the appellate tribunal, they ought to have been
made parties to the appeal so that they could have made arguments
in favour of the legal validity of the partition deed – This opportunity
being denied to them is also fatal to the appellate authority’s order,
which has, therefore, wrongly been upheld by the High Court –
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings)
and (Amendment) Act, 1972 – Hindu Law – Partition – Jurisdiction
– Interpretation of statutes – Legal fiction – Party, impleadment of.
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,
1961: ss.8, 10 and 11 – Transfer and partition after cut-off date –
Jurisdiction of Collector to declare such transfer/partition

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