Maharashtra agriculture land ceiling act
Nandkishor Maroti Ambade
(Querist) 29 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
If a Major unmarried daughter now (newly) purchases a land in her own name and becomes absolute owner thereof, whether the same (this land purchased by daughter) will be added to the land owned by family unit for the purpose of land ceiling under Maharashtra Agriculture land Ceiling Act. (as per the Act, Major unmarried daughters are excluded from the family unit for the purpose of ceiling).
I shall be glad, if you can provide me the valuable opinion in the matter.
-Regards
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 31 March 2013
Section 4 of the Act lays". Land held by family unit:—
(1) All land held by each member of a family unit, whether jointly or separately shall
for the purposes of determining the ceiling area of the family unit, be deemed to
be held by the family unit.
Explanation - A “family unit” means,
a. a person and his spouse for more (or more than one spouse) and their minor
sons and minor unmarried daughters, if any; or
b. where any spouse is dead, the surviving spouse or spouses and the minor
sons and minor unmarried daughters; or
c. where the spouses are dead, the minor sons and minor unmarried daughters
of such deceased spouses."
Hence you are correct in your understanding
that major unmarried daughters do not comprise a family unit.
Nandkishor Maroti Ambade
(Querist) 01 April 2013
Thanks for the guidance in the matter.
Based on your reply, can I presume that for the purpose of land celiing act, the land that may be newly purchased by a major daughter will not be added to land owned by the Family Unit led by her Father. (If category D land- Father's family unit i.e himslef, wife and minor sons and mionr daughters together can have 54 acres land and each of his his major daughters can purchase/ own anohter 54 acres of land each, without attracting provisions of Agricultural Land ceiling Act.
Just to be sure, may I request you to kindly visit the judgment in case of :
Case :
Abdul Khadar vs Land Tribunal on 31 October, 1985Equivalent citations: ILR 1985 KAR 3923
Author: M Rao
Bench: M Rao
In this case, the major daughters have been treated as part of family unit for Agri land ceiling act purpose.
I shall be glad for your further comments if any.
-Regards
(Apparently, there is one more case law from Andhra giving similar judgement of Karnataka case.)
Waiting for your valuable reply.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 02 April 2013
Judgments prevail over the provisions of the Act and as per the judgment cited by you as well on the basis of other judgments, it is clear that the land in the name of the unmarried daughter is also included as the land hold by the family of the father.
Nandkishor Maroti Ambade
(Querist) 02 April 2013
Thanks Mr. Raj Kumar Makkadji for the valuable advice. I have some more observations in the matter -as under--
There is one case from Maharashtram giving the judgement contraty to that of Karnataka case. The case, I am referring is:
Rambhau
Vs
State of Maharashtra
Civil Appeal No. 2730 of 1986
(R. M. Sahai, S. P. Bharucha JJ)
01.12.1993
JUDGMENT
R. M. SAHAI, J.
=====================================
The relevant paragraphs in the Judgement are reproduced here :
"The ceiling area under Section 4 has to be determined of each member of a family unit, whether jointly or separately. Since the family unit under Section 4 consists of the tenureholder, his spouses and minor sons and minor unmarried daughters, it obviously excludes the major sons and the major daughters from the ambit of family unit for purposes of determination of ceiling area. In fact that provision is beneficial to a tenureholder. The family for purposes of determination of surplus area has been restricted to husband, wife and minor children only. If the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, and a major unmarried daughter is also to be a member of the family unit for determination of ceiling area, it may cause hardship in a large number of cases where a major unmarried daughter is a tenureholder in her own right. It is, therefore, not in the interest of the tenureholders to construe the section in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Apart from it, the language of the section being clear, it does not require any interpretation or construction. The court’s function of ascertaining the legislative intention arises only if there is any ambiguity in the provision or the literal construction of provision may be contrary to the legislative purpose or objective or may result in disastrous consequences. On the plain reading of the section, a notional working out of the share of each member of the family is required to be (sic made) only of those members who are entitled to a share on partition. The significance of the expression 'entitled to a share on partition' cannot be lost sight of. An unmarried daughter may be entitled for maintenance and marriage expenses, but she was not entitled to a share on partition. The significance of the expression 'entitled to a share on partition' cannot be lost sight of. An unmarried daughter may be entitled for maintenance and marriage expenses, but she was not entitled to a share on partition either under the customary High law or even under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, a daughter being not entitled to a share on partition, the notionally working out of her share under Section 3(3) (i) stands legislatively excluded. In either case, an unmarried major daughter having not been included by the legislature in the definition of 'family unit' and for very good reasons the claim of the appellant that the calculation done by the ceiling authorities suffers from any error of law or is unfair does not appear to be well founded.
5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
My Submission:
There being 2 contrary Judgements, can u please advise me as to which Judgement would prevail.
Certainly, I am getting quite confused in the matter, and this can be sorted out/ settled only by a legal expert.
Waiting for your valueable advice.
-Regards.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 02 April 2013
Well Mr.Nandkishor Maroti Ambade!
You are testing knowledge of experts with regard to various judgement or want to understand your matter.
the first thing I wish you to understand that agricultural land legislation power vests in state.
In maharashtra ,law of maharashtra shall
be read and in karnataka,law in karnataka would be read,then if two acts differ on some point then judgement of other state would be of no value.Judgement of one state may be usefully used only when the statute books of two states are common on any point.
To appreciate karnataka case First go through statute law of karnataka to get the point it differs with definition given in maharashtra statute law or not?
Even when the two provisions are similar but judgements in two state are different,
judgement of karnataka would be precedent for karnataka and judgement of maharashtra
would be precedent for maharashtra is the law of precedent.
You are in maharashtra hence your concern must be law and judgements passed in maharashtra.This is why i did not take pain to look into judgement of karnataka as i am not obliged to do unnecessary and unwarranted exercise to get confused by off hand advices many time experts give here.
IS THE POINT HOME NOW?
Nandkishor Maroti Ambade
(Querist) 02 April 2013
Thanks Mr Singh,
My interest is just to understand the matter which is concerning me. (No inclination, whatsoever, to test expert's knowledge please. I regret, if my raising further query has offended anybody).
However, I wanted to be sure about the matter.
Sir, can I summarise the matter / conclusion as under:
"For the purpose of land celiing act (Maharashtra), the land that may be newly purchased by a major daughter will not be added to land owned by the Family Unit led by her Father. (If category D land- Father's family unit i.e himslef, wife and minor sons and mionr daughters together can have 54 acres land and each of his his major daughters can purchase/ own anohter 54 acres of land each, without attracting provisions of Agricultural Land ceiling Act.
Your kind confirmation of above position would be of immense help to me.
-Regards.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 02 April 2013
The definition given of family unit in the Act is without any ambiguity to arrive at conclusion i arrived.
I have not gone through whole of the Act.
