# UTTAM CHAND v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1048
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1980-02-14
- **Case number:** Civil App.,a! No. 1415 of 1970
- **Bench:** S. Mu!l.TAZA FAZAL ALI, A. D. KosHAL
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/uttam-chand-v-state-of-maharashtra-anr-7700
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 an

## Text

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 within the ceiling limits of a person or
his
family \Vhich belonged to such a person or persons having different
shares
in that property. That is v.·hy all transfers made prior to 1959 were expressly exempted from the operation of the Act.
[105\E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil App.,a! No. 1415 of 1970.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 30-9-69 of the
Bombay
High Court in S.C.A. No. 1512 of 1967.
V. M. Tarkunde, R. Salish, V. K. Pandita and E. C. A garwala
for the Appellant.
M. C. Bhandare, C. K. Ratnaparkhi and M. N. Shrof]
for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
FAzAL Au. J.
This appeal by certificate is directed against a
judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30-9-1969 dismissing the
G
writ petition filed by the appellant against an order of the Commissioner.
The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and may be
stated as follows :
Proceedings under Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling of
R
Holdings) Maharashtra Act No. XXVII 1961 and (hereinafter to be
referred to as the Act) which received the assent of the President on
D
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 2 S.C.R.
-·-
16-6-1961 were taken against the appellant in order
to determine
whether the return filed by the appellant under the provisions of the
Act was correct or not. In his return filed before the Depuiy Collecfor,
the appellant had shown the total lands to be 370 acres and 34 gunthas.
It was however alleged by the appellant that some time in the year
1956, there was a partition between the appellant and bis nephews
as a result of which his family got 202 acres of land.
The appellant
bad sold 51 acres of land to other persons before the Act came into
force.
The appellant further alleged that he gave some lauds to his
adopted son in lieu of the latter's share. Th~ adopted son Nemichand
thereafter gave 93.25 acres of land to his mother under a civil Court
decree.
All these transactions took . place some time
in the year
1956.
The Collector after exainining the return found that the total
land owned by the appellant was 118 acres 36 gunthas and the excess
was only 4 acres 36 gunthas which could be taken over under the
Act.
Against ihe order of the Deputy Collector, the Commissioner
appears to have called for the records and interfered suo moto and
after making some enquiry, he held that the land declared by the appel"
!ant in his return far-exceeded the ceiling limit. In computing the total
lands owned by ihe appellant, the Commissioner appears to have taken
into account even that land which had been given by Nem.ichand to
his mother, ihe wife of the appellant.
Against this order of Commissioner, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which
was dismissed as a result of which an application was filed for frant
of certificate for appeal to this Court which was granted. Hence this
Appeal.
The short point taken by Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, learned counsel
for the appellant is that under the provisions of the Act, land which
was received by his wife from the adopted son Was her personal property and could not !J.~ included in the ceiling of the appellant and
that the Commissioner iherefore had no jurisdiction to add that land
and treat the same as the land of the appellant and proceed to set
said the order of the Depnty Collector. The High Court in a short
judgment refused to interfere mainly on lhc ground that the transfer
of the land in favour of Nemichand, the adopted son, was held to be
collusive as also the decree.
There was neither any pleading nor any
case made out either before the Deputy Collector or even before ihe
Commissioner to indicate that the transfer of the lands in favour
of
the adopted son and ihe transfer of N em.ichand in favour of his mother
were collusive or tainted by fraud.
In fact both these transactions
took place as far back as 1956, ihat is to say, five years before the
Act came into force.
Even ihe Act clearly exempts lands which may
1
•
• y
---
UTTAM CHAND v. MAHARASHTRA (Fazai Ali, J.)
1051
have been acquired or transferred prior to 4-8-1959.
Ss. 8, 10 and
12 which deal with the subject clearly enjoin that only those trallsfers
wouW be ·hit by the Act which are made at any
time on or after
4-8-1959. As both the transfers mentioned above
were prior to
4-8-1959, it is obvious that they fell completely outside the ambit of
the provisions of the Act. The High Court was thus not justilied in
pr\:Suming that the transfer made by the appetlant in favour of his
ad0pted son towards his share and the transfer by the adopted son
Nemichand to his mother were either collusive or fraudulent.
There
was neither any foundation in the pleadings nor any evidence to support this conjecture of the High Court.
Mr. Bhandare, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the. word 'person' defined in Sec. 2(22) of the Act includes family and that 'family' as defined in Sec. 2(11) of the Act
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 estate or possession or residence. Reliance was
also placed on
Section 6 of the Act which runs thus :
"Where a family unit consists of members which exceed
five in number, the family unit shall be entitled to bold land
exceeding the ceiling area !o the extent of one-fifth of t.he
ceiling area for each member in excess of five, 50 however
that the total holding shall not exceed twice the ceiling area,
and in such cas~, in relation to the holding of such family
unit, such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area."
These sections are of no assistance to the Respondent
because
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 seperate or individual property of a member of the family which is self-acquired property and cannot be clubbed together with land of owner or his
family.
To begin with the Act merely intended to include land within the ceiling limit of a person or his family which belonged lo such
a person or persons having different shares in that property.
That is
why all transfers made prior to 1959 were expressly exempted from
the operation of the Act.
The arguments advanced by the r~spondent
appear to have found favour with the Commissioner, but it was legally
erroneous as indicated above. In these circumstances, therefore, the
most important f~ct to be determined was whether or not ·any transfer
that has been made by the person concerned was prior to or after
4-8-1959. If the transfer was prior to 4-8-1959 then the provisions
of the Act would not apply at all. In the instant case, both the
c
E.
F
R
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 3 S.C.R.
.A
transfers being three years prior to the date mentioned above, the Act
would not apply to the appellant, and the Commissioner and the High
Court therefore erred in holding that the lands transferred by Nemichand to his mother should be included in the total area of the land
owned by the appellant.
B
We, therefore, allow this Appeal, set aside the judgment of the
High Court and also that of the Commissioner and restore the judgment of the Deputy Collector. In the special circumstances, there
shall be no on:Jers as to costs.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
N.K.A.
Appeal allowed.
•
• •