ISSUE:
Whether the definition of “person” in the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, includes a body of individuals/association of persons?
Whether co-ownership, per se, is an “association of persons/body of individuals” and therefore constitutes a “person”?
Whether the ten purchasers, who became co-owners of the land, together constitute a “body of individuals/association of persons” and therefore a “person” within the meaning of that expression in the Ceiling Act?
Whether the partition dated 30-12-1971 among the co-owners is “deemed to have been made in anticipation to defeat the object of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act, 1972” under Section 8(1) of the Ceiling Act; and if so what is the effect of failure to make an application under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Ceiling Act?
What would be the position if some of the co-owners were non-agriculturists at the time of purchase of the lands? Whether the Mamlatdar can examine this issue when considering the question of surplus land under the Ceiling Act?
RULE:
Both definitions of the word “person”, in the General Clauses Act and the Ceiling Act, are inclusive definitions. The inclusive definition of “person” in the General Clauses Act applies to all Gujarat Acts unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or the context. The inclusive definition of “person” in Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act, does not indicate anything repugnant to the definition of “person” in the General Clauses Act, but merely adds “joint family” to the existing definition.
When different persons buy undivided shares in a plot of land and engage a common developer to construct an apartment building, with individual ownership in regard to respective apartment and joint ownership of common areas, the co-owners of the plot of land, do not become an “association of persons/body of individuals”, in the absence of a deeming provision in a statute or an agreement.
Sub-section (1) of Section 8 makes it clear that where any person has partitioned any land held by him 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.