Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LPA/1106/2011 / Order: Downloaded On: Sun Jun 16 14:46:03 IST 2019
LPA/1106/2011 / Order: Downloaded On: Sun Jun 16 14:46:03 IST 2019
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5862 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5863 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5864 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5865 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5866 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5867 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5868 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5869 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5870 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5871 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5872 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5873 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5875 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5876 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5878 of 2012
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5879 of 2012
Appearance :
LPA No. 1106/11 TO 1111/11 & 1116/11 – MR JV JAPEE for
appellants.
LPA No. 2653 of 2010 – MR PM BHATT for appellants.
LPA No. 2782 of 2010 – MR RAJESH K SHAH for appellants.
SCA No. 4599/12, 5857/12 to 5873/12, 5875/12, 5876/12, 5878/12,
5879/12 – MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. COUNSEL with MR YN OZA,
SR. COUNSEL with MR SP MAJMUDAR with MR VIMAL A PUROHIT for
Petitioners.
and
and
Date : 22/06/2012
Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then the Chief
by different orders, LPAs No. 2653 of 2010 and 2782 of 2010 were
this Bench was constituted for hearing all those nine LPAs.
2.2 The subject matter of the nine LPAs indicated above is the
therefore, they are illegally holding agricultural land within the State
wherein it was indicated that any sale of land made to any non-
any other State outside Gujarat would attract the provisions contained
Land [Vidarba Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred
LPAs and as indicated above, the Division Bench, being prima facie
was not correct, and apart from that if it is held that an agriculturist of
land in this State, in that case, the question would arise as to the
these matters is whether a person who does not own agricultural land
within the meaning of the Act simply because he does not cultivate
any agricultural land within the State of Gujarat and on that ground,
to refer to section 2(3), 12(12), 4 and section 89 of the Act, which are
quoted below:
2. Definitions.
(1) The State Government shall determine for all or any class
of land in each local area the area of a family holding on the
following basis in the prescribed manner :-
2. Definitions:
(3) “agriculturist” means a person who cultivates land
personally;
(3A) Where any person hold any land in any other part of the
India outside the State, then, the area of land so held by
him in such other part, not exceeding the maximum area
of land, which such person is entitled to hold in such
other part of India under any law, if any, relating to ceiling
on land, used or capable of being used for agricultural
purposes, shall be excluded from the ceiling area in
excess of which a person is not entitled to hold land
under this section and the extent of land determined
after so excluding such area shall in relation to such
person, be deemed to be the ceiling area, to be held by
him in this State;
8. Mr. Thakore, Mr. Oza, Mr. Japee and Mr. Bhatt, the learned
person who cultivates land personally and the expression “to cultivate
or kind but not in crop share. According to those learned counsel, the
contained in Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 that for the
this State simply because in the past, he had no such land held by
him in this State. According to them, the action on the part of the
counsel for the appellants, therefore, pray for setting aside the orders
is reproduced hereunder:
1.2 Mr. Trivedi then relied upon Section 2[2] of the Bombay Tenancy
1.3 Mr. Trivedi also relied upon the provisions of section 2[6] of the
Bombay Tenancy Act are read along with the provisions of the
to Mr. Trivedi, will apply even to those who are not originally the
the State and become tiller as on 1st April, 1957 in the State.
[i] Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi & Others, vs. State of
2. Mr. Trivedi further contended that the title and preamble of the
and merely because the same is enacted for the benefit of the
[ii] Kishan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors,
Bombay 144:
Mr. Trivedi points out that the aforesaid view has been
4.1 Mr. Trivedi further contends that similar observations are also
Bom. L.R. 463 = AIR 1957 Bombay 99, while dealing with
4.3 All the above referred three judgments, Mr. Trivedi proceeds,
reported in 2001 [4] GLR 3180- vide paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 13.
31A and 31B read with 9th Schedule to the Constitution and in
The aforesaid view, Mr. Trivedi points out, has been confirmed
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going
accordingly, they had no occasion to till the soil of Gujarat. The only
question before us is whether their case will come within the purview
writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage or any land or
Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale, gift,
propose to discuss those provisions as those are not relevant for the
more than three family holdings as indicated therein within the State
of Gujarat.
14. We further find that according to Gujarat Land ceiling Act, 1960
section 6 of the said Ceiling Act, which has an overriding effect over
all law for the time being in force, no person should be entitled to
tenant land in excess of the ceiling area and while determining such
ceiling area, any land held by an agriculturist in any other part of the
India outside the State, not exceeding the maximum area of land,
which such person is entitled to hold in such other part of India under
used for agricultural purposes, shall be excluded from the ceiling area
section.
15. The above provision of the Ceiling Act enacted in the year 1960
has made its intention abundantly clear that the land held by an
counsel appearing for the appellants that under the terms of the Act,
indicated in the Act if such land is situated in any part of India. In the
by a different State.
counsel for the appellants that it was never the intention of the
State to hold any land in the State of Gujarat unless he was holding
such land in this State and if that was the intention, in that event, the
as would appear from the fact that even under the provisions of the
of the former, the latter will definitely acquire interest in the land in
Gujarat.
purpose of the Act will be frustrated. In our opinion, when the State
20. We now propose to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Trivedi in
21. In the case of Sri Ram Ram Narain vs. State of Bombay
reported in AIR 1959 SC 459, the Supreme Court was dealing with
the scope of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and referred
be legitimate for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve
therefrom some sense which may be said to carry out the supposed
gathered only from the words used by it and no such liberties can be
legislature.
22. We fail to appreciate how the said principles can be of any help
to the State in this case. Mr. Trivedi tried to rather impress upon us
that we should read in the statute “in the State of Gujarat” in the
in AIR 1971 SC 1992, all that was decided by the Supreme Court
was that the saving of land provided for acquisition by a State and the
protection is available not only to acts which come within its terms
which change some detail of the scheme of the Act provided firstly
that the change is not such as would take it out of Article 31A or by
itself is not such as would not be protected by it and secondly that the
24. We are, in the present case, not concerned with the protection
under Article 31A and thus, we find that the said decision is also
[1970] 11 GLR 122, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with
25.1 In the case before us, we are not concerned with the transfer of
a land belonging to a tenant and thus, the said decision as well as the
the present case. Chapter III deals with special rights and privileges
help Mr. Trivedi for resolving the question involved in the present
cases.
in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself.
and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself. The
Supreme Court pointed out that in that case, the title or preamble of
Madras Sales Tax Act clearly show that its object is to impose taxes on
sales that take places within the province, though these words do not
necessarily mean that the property in the goods sold must pass within
the province.
27. In the case before us, we have already pointed out that if we
take into consideration the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act enacted
State. It was never the intention of the legislature only to take into
Therefore, the above decision also does not help Mr. Trivedi in any
way.
reported in AIR 1963 SC 1241, the Supreme Court pointed out [in
intention and objects of the Act cannot be used to cut down the
29. The above decision was cited by Mr. Trivedi for the purpose of
opposing the submissions made by Mr. Oza that the address given by
the concerned Minister while moving the 1958 Act should be taken
not take into consideration the address of the Minister, it is quite clear
question.
30. In the case of Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd.[supra], the
from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence such
which led to the passing of the statute may be looked into for the
while enacting the Act and in our view, on a plain meaning of the
anywhere in India for the purpose of the Act in question. Thus, the
be all embracing and merely because, the same is enacted for the
law but the fact remains that the State Legislature has the right to
within the definition of the word “agriculturist” in the State Act and
ceiling limit within the State. In the case before us, Gujarat State
apply the principle laid down in the above two Supreme Court
34. So far as the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
reported in AIR 1952 Bom. 54, we are of the view that the facts of
the said case are quite different from the one involved in the present
case. In that case, it was held by Chief Justice Chagla, that Legislature
was only interested in those people who were cultivating land within
us also, Gujarat State Legislature was concerned with the person who
intends to hold agricultural land and object of the Act is to see that
in any part of India is holding the land in the State of Gujarat. Thus,
are quite conscious that the above view of Chagla, C.J. has been
AIR 1957 Bom. 99, held that the Legislature is not concerned with
improving the lot of any person outside the State of Bombay nor is it
Act was not in existence nor was there any provision for taking into
the time being will cultivate the land in the State. Thus, the idea
the persons who used to cultivate land in the State at one point of
time but not as regards the persons who in future will cultivate the
Articles 31A and 31B read with 9th Schedule of the Constitution of
India and as such, we do not propose to deal with two decision of the
agriculturist having agricultural land outside the State except for the
conscious that under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960,
land situated in this State is the subject-matter and the fact that
the time of purchase holds land outside the State of Gujarat though
38. We, thus, find that the decisions cited by Mr. Trivedi are of no
that a person who does not own agricultural land within the State of
not cultivate any agricultural land within the State of Gujarat and on
Act.
of Gujarat dated 4th April 1973 wherein it was indicated that any sale
41. The Letters Patent appeals are, thus, allowed to the extent
indicated above.
herein. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into
taking into
FURTHER ORDER:-