RAMENDRA .SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA P'lADESH AND OTHERS

• . .451 A .• ·'t B January 23, !J84

,. . . [E. S. VENKATARAM!AH AND M. P. THAKKAll JJ.] . . . Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultilral Holdings Act, j960 (.Act No~ 20 of ~ 1960); SeCtion 6 and read with SeCtionJ2(gg). c.ons_/rfl.lu!tiOn of:-Whether, in. vitw of

-· ihe wordi,;g· in section 6 (ii) viz "eaeh 1ne111ber of the·/ptnily, including a n_1inor son would b~coine a holder entitled to a separate unit ofihe _ceiling· area'', the. 11tintJr son will be.entitled to-clllifn a separate ceilifiC.are.a independently.

DismisS_ing the Special Leav~ Petition, -the Court, /

Begulld Bapi i:-aju etc. ·e1c_"v. State of of A. P. (1983) ·2 Scale l41 followed. E Sarj~ibai_& -Ors. V. State of M. P. ~Ors. (Misc. P~titlon No. 811 of 197' of M. P .. High Court} app~oved.. • . .• ·. - -I . CIVIL APPHLLATB .JURISDICTION·~ Appeal (Civil) No' 14604 of 1983 .. Peiition for Special Leave to...,

From the Judgment and 'Order dated the 2nd September. 1983 . of the Madhya Pradesh High Coi1rt (Indore Berich) .·in Civil Miscel- . F

laneous Petition ·No. 193 of 197&. ·• G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Gambhir and A.shok Mahajan for the Petitioner.. - .

. Ravbidrq )Jana and A.K: Sanghi for. t.he Respondent. .' The Order of the ·Court was delivered by. • VENkATARAMIAH, J. The con.iention of the· petitioner in the above case ·is that on a tttie· construction .of.section -·6 read with section 2(gg) ·:of. the 11adhya Prad.esh Ceiling on Agric\i!tural Ho!din2s Ad, "

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R . • A 1960 (Act No. 2o of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') each member of the family, including a minor son would become a holder entitled to a separate unit of the ceiling area. In other words, it is argued that a minor son who is deemed to be entitled to an area of joint family land proportionate to his share under sectfon 6(ii) of the .Act ·is entitled to claim a separate ceiling area independently. It is B contended. that his share of land cannot be clubbed with the lan<l which can be claimed by his.father as his ceiling. area ..

We have heari:! Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the peti- tioner. He .'has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Act viz. section 2 (gg), section 6 and section 7 of the Act. The High Couri has 10egat'ved the above .wntention of the petitioner relying upon its ear.lier decision in Sarjubai & Ors.· v. State ofMddhya Pradesl1. & .Ors. (Misc. Petition No. ·Sil of 1979). We have gone through that decision. On going through the said decision, we find that it is correctly decided. - We agree with the reasons given .in support of th~ said .decision. ft is ·in conformity with the view expressed by· this Court in Begulla v: Bapi Raju etc. etc. State of Andhra Pradesh.">

Section 6(ii) of the Act does ·not have any effect on the ceiling area to which· a family as defined in section 2(gg) is entitled under section· 7.

E The petition is atcotdingly dismissed.

F· S;R. Petition dismissed. - . ' .•

• (I) ,[1983].2.SCALE141. •