TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms decision on joint family partition & ceiling area under Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Act</h1> The court upheld the decision of the Deputy Collector and Revenue Tribunal, dismissing the appeal. It was determined that the joint family did not undergo ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether there was a severance of the joint family and a partition of lands in 1956 and 1960.2. Determination of the ceiling area under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.3. Consideration of additional family members born after the appointed day.4. Treatment of land purchased separately by a family member before the appointed day.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Severance of the Joint Family and Partition of Lands in 1956 and 1960:The appellants claimed that the joint family had undergone a partial partition in 1956 and a complete partition in 1960. They relied on mutation vardhis, sales of lands, market receipts, affidavits, and a consent deed to support their claim. The Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal rejected this claim, noting the absence of a partition deed, unequal distribution of shares, and lack of evidence for the division of other properties like houses. Additionally, the authorities found no proof that the sale proceeds were appropriated by the members to whom the lands were allegedly allotted. The concurrent finding of fact by both authorities was that the appellants' case of partition was not acceptable. The court held that it would not interfere with such a concurrent finding of fact under Article 136.2. Determination of Ceiling Area:The Act imposes a ceiling on agricultural land holdings from the appointed day, January 26, 1962. Section 4 prohibits holding land in excess of the ceiling area, and any excess is deemed surplus. Section 5 specifies the ceiling area for different local areas and classes of land. For families with more than five members, Section 6 allows holding additional land to the extent of 1/6th of the ceiling area for each member exceeding five. The proviso to Section 6 states that if any member holds land separately, they shall not be regarded as a member for the purpose of increasing the family's ceiling area. The court concluded that the ceiling area is determined with reference to the appointed day and is not subject to fluctuations due to changes in family size.3. Consideration of Additional Family Members Born After the Appointed Day:The appellants argued that the ceiling area should be redetermined to account for three children born after the appointed day. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Act does not provide for redetermination of the ceiling area based on subsequent changes in family size. The ceiling area is fixed as of the appointed day, and any subsequent births do not alter it. The court cited previous judgments from the Bombay High Court supporting this interpretation.4. Treatment of Land Purchased Separately by a Family Member Before the Appointed Day:Madhav had purchased 11.20 acres of land in March 1960. The proviso to Section 6 stipulates that if a family member holds land separately, they cannot be considered a member for the purpose of increasing the family's ceiling area. The court held that either the land is treated as Madhav's separate property, in which case he is not considered a family member for ceiling purposes, or it is treated as family property, in which case it is added to the family's total holding, and Madhav is considered a family member. The Tribunal found no evidence that the land was treated as Madhav's separate property and included it in the family's holding, allowing for an additional 1/6th of the ceiling area.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the findings of the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal. The court affirmed that the family held 354.27 acres of land, and the ceiling area for the family was 192 acres, making 162.27 acres surplus. The court also clarified that the ceiling area is determined as of the appointed day and does not change with subsequent family size variations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
