Holding

The term 'person' under the 1986 Act includes a Hindu joint family, so the Schedule‑II ceiling is to be applied to the family's total holding, not to individual coparceners.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire agricultural land belonging to a Hindu joint family under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The appellants challenged the acquisition, contending that each coparcener's share should be measured separately, keeping the family's total holding within the Schedule‑II ceiling, and thus the acquisition was illegal. The Bombay High Court held that the term "person" in Section 2(8) of the 1986 Act includes a Hindu joint family, so the Schedule‑II limit applies to the family's aggregate holding, and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the definition of "person" in the 1961 Agricultural Land Ceiling Act could control the interpretation, and concluded that it does not apply; the appropriate reference is Section 3(35) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which treats a Hindu joint family as a "body of individuals" and therefore a "person". Consequently, the Schedule‑II ceiling is to be applied to the joint family's total land, not to individual coparceners, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The meaning of 'person' in Section 2(8) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 with respect to a Hindu joint family.
Whether the Schedule‑II land‑holding limit under the 1986 Act should be calculated on the basis of each coparcener's share or on the joint family's aggregate holding.
Whether the definition of 'person' in the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 is applicable to interpret the 1986 Act.

Legislation cited

Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904s. 3(35)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Land Acquisition Act, 1898s. 4(1)
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961s. 2(11), s. 2(22)
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986s. 14(2), s. 14(3), s. 2(8)

Subjects

Hindu joint familydefinition of personSchedule II ceilingland acquisitionProject Affected Persons Rehabilitation ActBombay General Clauses ActAgricultural Land Ceiling Actcoparcenerpublic purpose

Judgment

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 589

SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 546 of 2004)
AUGUST 30, 2010
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL
R. DAVE, JJ.]

Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,
1986 - s. 2 (8) and Schedule II - Notification uls. 4 of Land C
Acquisition Act - For acquisition of the land belonging to
Hindu Joint Family for the purpose of 1986 Act - For
acquisition, whether the limit prescribed under Schedule II
would be applicable to the holdings of Hindu Joint Family as
one unit or to the holding of each coparcener of the joint family D
as one unit - Held: In view of s. 2(8) and s. 3(35) of Bombay
General Clauses Act, 1904, Hindu Joint Family is covered
under the expression 'person' - Therefore the limit prescribed
under Schedule II has to be considered in the light of the
holdings of Hindu Joint Family and not holding of the E
individual coparcener of the family - Definition of 'person'
given uls. 2(22) of Land Ceiling on Holdings Act is not
applicable to s. 2(8) - Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling
on Holdings) Act, 1961 - s. 2(22) - Bombay General Clauses
Act, 1904 - s. 3 (35) - Land Acquisition Act, 1898 - s. 4.
F
Words and Phrases - 'Person' - Meaning of, in the
context of s.2(8) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
Rehabilitation Act, 1986 and s. 3(35) of Bombay General
Clauses Act, 1904
G
Notification u/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was
issued by respondent-State notifying acquisition of
certain agricultural land under the Maharashtra Project
Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The appellants
589 H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the
Notification. They took the plea that holdings of each
coparcener of the Hindu Joint Family would be calculated
as one unit and thus the total holding of the appellants'
joint family was within the limit prescribed under
B Schedule II of the 1986 Act and, therefore, could not be
acquired under the 1986 Act r/w. the Land Acquisition Act.
The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the
expression 'person' occurring in the definition of
'holding' u/s. 2(8) of the 1986 Act would include a Hindu
c Joint Family and thus the limit prescribed under
Schedule II has to be seen in the light of holding of the
Hindu Joint Family and not as holdings of individual
coparcener.

In the instant appeal, the appellants contended that
D in view of s. 2(22) and (11) of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, the expression ·
'person' would include individual · coparceners
constituting the Hindu Joint Family.

E Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. On appreciation of the records of the
instant case and in view of s. 2(22) and (11) of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
1961, the expressions 'person' and 'family' as contained
F in the Act of 1961 have no application to the facts and
circumstances of the instant case. The object and
purpose of enactment of the Act of 1961 is completely
different from that of the Maharashtra Project Affected
Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 which would be
G applicable to the instant case. The Legislature, while
enacting the Act of 1986, incorporated the definition of
expression 'holding' u/s. 2(8) and was fully conscious of
the fact that there is a definition of expression 'person'
in the Act of 1961, but despite the said fact, it did not
H incorporate the said definition of expression 'person'
SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR v. STATE OF 591
MAHARASHTRA
given in the Act of 1961. Since the expression 'person' A
is not defined in the Act of 1986, in order to ascertain the
definition of the same, the provisions of the Bombay
General Clauses Act, 1904 has to be referred to. [Para 14
15) (596-D-F-H]
B
2. Sectfon 3(35) of the Bombay General Clauses Act,
1904 defines persons to "include any company or
association or body of individuals, whether incorporated
or not." In that event, if the position and standard as
enunciated ii'! the legislation of the 1904 Act is adopted, C
it has to be held that the expression 'person' would
include the body of individuals, meaning thereby, that the
Hindu Joint Family is a body of individuals and is covered
under the expression 'person' mentioned in Section 2(8)
of the 1986 Act. [Para 16) [597-A-B]
D
3. Once the Hindu Joint Family is held to be a person,
the limit prescribed in Schedule-I/ of the 1986 Act has to
be considered in the light of the holding of Hindu Joint
Family and not holding of individual coparceners
constituting a Hindu Joint Family. Therefore, the findings E
and the conclusions arrived at by ttle High Court is
upheld. [Para 17] (597-C-D]

Gaya Din(Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Hanuman
Prasad (Dead)through Lrs. and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 501 -
held inapplicable. F

Case Law Reference:
(2001) 1 sec 501 held inapplicable. Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 546 G
of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 24.01.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5720 of
2001.
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar, Dr. Kailash Chand for the
Appellants.

Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair, Mukesh
K. Giri for the Respondents.
B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The present
petition is directed against the judgment and order dated
24.01.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High
c Court dismissing the Writ Petition, filed by the appellants herein,
registered as Writ Petition No. 5720 of 2001.

2. In the Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the
Bombay High Court, they challenged the legality of the
notification issued by the respondent-State herein under
D Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. The appellants in the said Writ Petition prayed for
quashing and setting aside the commencement of the Land
Acquisition proceedings qua the appellants. Appellant No. 1
E sought the said relief on the ground that a total holding of the
appellant family being land covering 12.6 hectares, and each
of the co-sharer of the family being entitled to hold land
measuring about 2.53 hectares of land, no land could be
acquired under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
F Rehabilitation Act, 1986 [for short "Act of 1986"]. Consequently,
it was argued that the entire exercise of proceeding under the
Land Acquisition Act against the appellant is illegal and without
jurisdiction.

4. According to the appellants, each member of the family
G who has attained the age of majority is entitled to hold
independent land. Therefore, it is their submission that, akin to
the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands [Ceiling
on(Holdings] Act, 1961 [for short "Act of 1961], each one of
them would be entitled to retain his share in the joint family
H
SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR v. STATE OF 593
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
property which would be calculated as one unit each and if after A
such calculation, there is any excess land, such land could only
be acquired in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra
Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 read with the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
B
5. The aforesaid contention of the appellants were refuted
by the respondent-State contending inter alia that the
expression "holding" is defined under Section 2(8) of the
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986,
which indicates the total land held by a person as an occupant
or tenant or as both. Since the expression "person" appearing C
in the said definition is not defined under the Act of 1986,
therefore, according to the State, resort should be had to,the
definition of the expression of "persons" under Section 3(35)
of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. According to the
said legislation, the expression "persons" could include any D
company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not, and relying on this definition, the stand of
the State is that the expression joint Hindu family would also
be included within the expression "person" and, therefore, the
holding of the entire joint Hindu family itself would be calculated E
as one unit.

6. The Bombay High Court, where the Writ Petition was
filed, accepted the contention of the State Government and held
that the expression "person" occurring in the definition of F
"h,olding" under Section 2(8) of the Act of 1986 cannot be
restricted solely to natural persons or juristic persons and that
the expression "person" would include any company or
association or body of individuals. In the opinion of the High
Court, a Hindu Joint Family without doubt would be a body of G
individuals and would be covered under the expression
"person" occurring in the definition of "holding" under Section
2(8) of the Act of 1986.

7. Having concluded so, the Bombay High Court also held
that once Hindu Joint Family is held to be a person, the limit H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A prescribed in Schedule-II has to be seen in the light of the
holding of the person, i.e., holding of the Hindu Joint Family and
not as holding of individual coparceners who constitute a Hindu
Joint Family. The aforesaid findings recorded by the High Court
are challenged in this appeal, wherein we have heard the
B learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. The counsel for the appellants in support of his
submission drew our attention to the definition clauses of the
Act of 1986, with a particular reference to sub-Section 2 of
Section 2 of the same, wherein the expression "affected
C person" is defined also to mean an occupant whose land in the
affected zone is acquired under Section 14 for the purposes
of a project and to the definition of expression "holding" under
Section 2(8) of the Act of 1986.

D 9. Sub-Section 2 of Section 14 of the Act of 1986
authorises the State Government to also compulsorily acquire
land for carrying out the purposes of the said Act under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and the acquisition of any land for
any of the said purposes shall be deemed to be a public
E purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act. It is
also provided under sub-Section 3 of Section 14 that the State
Government may also acquire lands in a gaothan in the affected
zone as far as practicable according to the provisions of Part
I of the Schedule.
F 1O.The relevant provisions mentioned above may be
reproduced here for ready reference: -

The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation
Act, 1986: -
G
"Section 2 (2) "affected person" means -

(a) an occupant whose land in the affected zone (including
land in the gaothan) is acquired under section 14 for the
purposes of a project;
H
SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR v. STATE OF 595
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

······································· ······························································· A

Section 2 (8) "holding" means the total land held by a
person as an occupant or tenant, or as both;
II

8
D "Section 14 (2) Subject to the provisions of this section,
the State Government may for carrying out the purposes
of this Act, also compulsorily acquire land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894; and the acquisition of any land for
any of the said purposes shall be deemed to be a public c
purpose within the meaning of that Act.

Section 14(3) The State Government may also acquire
lands included in a gaothan in the affected zone as far as
practicable according to the provisions of Part I of the
0
Schedule."

11. The Act of 1986 was enacted to consolidate and
amend the law relating to the rehabilitation of persons affected
by certain projects in the State of Maharashtra and also for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In order to E
achieve the aforesaid purpose and objective, land belonging
to a person could be acquired by issuing a notification under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case,
the acquisition proceeding was initiated by State Government
against the appellants who allege to be a Hindu Joint Family. F

12. Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his
submission that the expression "person" would include
individual coparceners constituting the Hindu Joint Family,
relied upon the Maharashtra Agricultural Lahd [Ceiling on
Holdings) Act, 1961. Counsel appearing for the appellant G
referred to sub-Section 22 of Section 2 of the Act of 1961 to
state that "person" includes a family and that expression
"family" is defined under Section 2 (11) of the Act of 1961 as
a Hindu Undivided Family, and in the case of other persons, a
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A group or unit the members of which by custom or usage, are
joint in estate or possession or residence.

13. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Gaya Qin (Dead) through
Lrs. & Others v. Hanuman Prasad (Dead) through Lrs. &
8
Others reported at (2001) 1 sec 501 to contend that under
the tenancy and land laws joint and undivided family is
recognized as a person and, therefore, each major member of
the family would be considered to hold one unit in the joint Hindu
C family property.

14. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in the
light of the records. On appreciation of the records and the
aforesaid provisions of law, we are of the considered opinion
that the expressions "person" and "family" as contained in the
D Maharashtra Agricultural Land [Ceiling on Holdings] Act, 1961
have no application at all to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. The object and purpose of enacting of the Act
of 1961 is completely different from that of the Maharashtra
Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
E
15. In the present case, the Maharashtra Agricultural Land
[Ceiling on Holdings] Act, 1961 is not applicable and what is
applicable is the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The expression "person" is defined
in the Act of 1961 and expression "holding" is defined in the
F Act of 1986. The Legislature while enacting the Act of 1986
incorporated the definition of expression "holding" under
Section 2(8) and was fully conscious of the fact that there is a
definition of expression "person" in the Act of 1961, but despite
the said fact, it did not incorporate the said definition of
G expression "person" given in the Act of 1961. Since the
expression "person" is not defined in the Act of 1986, in order
to ascertain the definition of the same, we necessarily have to
refer to the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act,
1904.
H
SUDAM SHANKAR KSHIRSAGAR v. STATE OF 597 .
MAHARASHTRA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
16. Section 3(35) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, A
1904 defines persons to "include any company or association
or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. In that
event, if we adopt the position and standard as enunciated in
the aforementioned legislation, it has to be held that the
expression "person" would include the body of individuals, B
meaning thereby, that the Hindu Joint Family is a body of
individuals and is covered under the expression "person"
mentioned in Section 2(8) of the Act of 1986.

17. Once the Hindu Joint Family is.held to be a person,
the limit prescribed in Schedule-II has to be considered in the C
light of the holding of Hindu Joint Family and not holding of
individual coparceners constituting a Hindu Joint Famlly. That
being the position, we uphold the findings and the conclusions
arrived at by the Bombay High Court.
D
18. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal, which
is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. . Appeal dismissed.
E