Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.1) The respondent's next contention is based on section 8 of Ceiling Act which provides that any transfer or partition effected between 24.1.1971 and the date on which the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force shall be deemed to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the said Amending Act unless it is proved to the contrary. It is contended that the partition effected among the ten co-owners under the unregistered agreement dated 30.12.1971 should be deemed to have been effected with the intention of defeating the object of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972, (Amending Act for short) having regard to the provisions of section 8 of the Ceiling Act. It is pointed out that the only way to avoid such a presumption was to make an application to the Collector under sub-section (2) of section 8 in the prescribed form within the prescribed period seeking a declaration that such partition was not made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972. It is contended that as such an application was not made to the Collector, the partition will have to be deemed as having been made to defeat the object of the Act and consequently the partition shall have to be ignored in computing the surplus land under the Act.

"(2) Any person effected by the provisions of sub-section (1) may, within the prescribed period and in the prescribed form, make an application to the Collector for a declaration that the transfer or partition was not made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of this Act, or as the case may be, of the Amending Act of 1972.

x x x x x (4) Where the application is rejected, the transfer or, as the case may be, the partition shall be ignored in computing under this Act the area of surplus land, if any, held by such person."

"Jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place. .."

This Court also relied on the following passage from Salmond's 'Jurisprudence':

"It is an undivided unity, which is vested at the same time in more than one person  The several ownership of a part is a different thing from the co-ownership of the whole. So soon as each of two co-owners begins to own a part of the thing instead of the whole of it, the co-ownership has been dissolved into sole ownership by the process known as partition. Co- ownership involves the undivided integrity of what is owned."

Question (iv) - What is the effect of section 8 of Ceiling Act?

25. The fact that the partition among the co-owners on 30.12.1971 was between 24.1.1971 and the date on which the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Amendment Act, 1972 came into effect, is not in dispute. Sub- section (1) of section 8 makes it clear that where any person has transferred or partitioned any land held by him between those dates then notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such partition shall be deemed to have been made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the said Amendment Act unless it is proved to the contrary. Sub-section (2) provides how the affected person may prove the contrary by filing an application to the collector seeking a declaration to that effect. When such an application is made, sub-section (3) requires the Collector to hold an inquiry and make an order either rejecting the application or declaring that the partition was not made in anticipation in order to defeat the object of the Amending Act, 1972. Sub-section (4) lays down that where an application for declaration is rejected, the transfer or partition shall be ignored in computing the area of surplus land held by such person. The same will be the effect where no application is made at all. It is thus clear that the statutory presumption that a partition made between those dates was intended to defeat the object of the Amendment Act cannot be displaced unless an application is made under sub-section (2) and a declaration is made by the Collector under sub-section (3). In this case, neither any application was made under sub-section (2) nor any declaration was made under sub-section (3). Therefore it has to be held that the partition effected on 30.12.1971 was deemed to have been made in order to defeat the object of the Amendment Act, 1972 and consequently, the partition will have to be ignored while computing the surplus land.