- (1.) In the course of an exercise in interpretation of a provision (Section 6(3-B) of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act of 1960), complains the appellant-State, the High Court has misinterpreted the said provision which had been correctly interpreted by the Tribunal (Gujarat Revenue Tribunal). The debate in the present appeal has centred on this plea the meritlessness of which will become evident presently.
(2.) The provision in question viz. Sec. 6(3-B) is embodied in Chapter III of the Ceiling Act which bears the caption 'Fixation of Ceiling on Holding Land, Determination of Surplus Land and Acquisition thereof. The concerned provision in so far as material to the problem posed by the present appeal deserves to be quoted : "6(3-B) Where a family or a joint family consists of more than five members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any of the following categories, namely : (i) minor son, (ii) widow of a pre-deceased son, (iii) minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son, where his or her mother is dead, such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of onefifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five, so however that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area, and in such a case, in relation to the holding of such family, such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area : Provided x x x x x x "
(3.) The philosophy of this provision stares one in the eyes. When a family is both large and comprises [which expression is employed in the sense of includes {Collins English Dictionary defines 'comprise as...... to include'......)] amongst it members who are subject to one or other of the socio-economic handicaps, fairness demands that such family is permitted to retain some more land than other families which are not so handicapped. The very nature of the three categories which are specified (minors, widow of a pre-deceased son, minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son who has lost both parents) conveys this message of plight. Understandable it is, that for such a family which has to carry the burden of misery, the community acting through the legislature has a soft corner and pours milk of human kindness into this benevolent provision aimed at relieving their distress to an extent. Such is the design. Two tests must be satisfied cumulatively for being eligible of claim the benefit : (1) The size of the family (Number of members should exceed 5). (2) It must consist of members one or more of whom belong to one or other of the specified handicapped categories. Now the factual backdrop in which the problem of interpretation has surfaced needs to be traced. The family of the respondent land-holder consisted of 9 members including himself. (The land-holder, his mother, his wife, his three minor sons and his three minor daughters). The question which arose was whether the land-holder was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 6(3-B) which provides that where a family or a joint family consist of more than 5 members comprising a person and other persons belonging to all or any of the specified categories, such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of 1/5 of the ceiling area for each member of the specified category in excess of five, subject to the rider that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area. The Tribunal took the view that Sec. 6(3-B) was not attracted to the case of the said land-holder notwithstanding the fact that his family consisted of 9 members and also comprised of other members belonging to specified category (i) (minor son). The view taken by the Tribunal is reflected in the following passage extracted from its order dated January 24, 1978 which gave rise to the Writ Petition in the High Court which in turn has given rise to the present appeal by special leave : "As regards the other contention of Shri R. K. Panchal, it may be observed that for the purpose of Sec. 6(3-B) family of the applicant consisted of not more than five members even though as a matter of fact there are nine members in his family because the applicant and his wife will count as one unit and his minor sons will count as four units for the purpose of Sec. 6(3-B) of the Act, and thus there are only five members in the family for the purpose of counting the unit. Therefore, the family is not entitled to hold more than 45 acres of land on the ground that there are nine members in the family as argued by Shri R. K. Panchal. In this view of the matter, the findings of the Mamlatdar and confirmed by the Deputy Collector do not deserve to be interfered with.";