- would become a holder entitled to a separate unit of 1 the ceiling: area",
-RAMENDRA SINGH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS | 7 January 23, 1984 [E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M. P. “THAKKAR JJ. 1
*
- Nadya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultvral "Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 20 of ~ 1960), Section 6 and read with Sectionj2 (gg). constrnuction of-—Wheiher, in. view of the wording in section 6 (ii) viz “each member o fi the. Sfarmil ly, including a mines. son the. Miner son will be’ entitled to- claim a separate ceiling. area independently.
"Dismissing the Special Léave Petition, “the Court, :
HELD : ° Section 6(ii) of the M: P. Ceiling on Agrigulsaral Holdings Act,
1960 does not have any effect. on the ceiling area to- which a family as defined in ~ Section 2 (gg) is entitled under Section 7. A misor’som whi fs déemed to be ' entitled to an atea of Joint Family land proportionate to his share under s. 6 (ii). is not entitled to a separate ‘ceiling area independently. His share of land can be clubbed with the land which can be claimed by his father as his ceiling area. [45205 B] Beguild Bapi Raju ete. €tc, ve State of of A. P. (1983) 2 Scale 141 followed. Sarjribat & Ors. ¥. State of M. P. & Ors. (Mise. Petition No. 811 of 1979 of M. P. High Court) approved. - . .
>. Crvo, APPELLATE ‘JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14604 of 1983.
” From the Judgment and ‘Order dated the 2nd: September. 1983 .
laneous Petition No. 193 of 1978.
Gu L. “Sanghi, S.K. Gantbhir and Ashok Mohan for the Petitioner.
7 Ravindra Bana and A.K. Sangh f for the Respondent
The Order of the Court was delivered by.
-VENKATARAMIAH, J. The coniention of the- petitioner in the
_ above case is that on a true construction.of. séction: 6 read with section
($8) + of the Madhya Pradesh Cotting on Agricultural Holdings Act, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Berich) ir in Civil Miscel- * , is in conformity with the view expressed by: this Court in Begulla Bapi Raju etc. ete, v. State of Andhra Pradesh.’ a) 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, ; The petition ig accordingly dismissed. S.R. mo . Petition dismissed. yt e
(1) [1983] 2 SCALE 141.
t .
452: «SUPREME COURT REPORTS | [1984] 28.0R. »
1960 (Act No. 20 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) éach’
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 section’ 6(ii) of the - .
Act is entitled to claim a separaté ceiling area independently. It: is contended that his share of land cannot be clubbed with the Jand ~ which can be claimed by hisefather. as his ceiling area.
We have heard Shri.G.E. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 Court has: acgatived the above sontention of the petitioner relying upon its. _ earlier decision in Sarjubai & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, & Ors.
(Misc. Petition No.°811 of 1979). We have gone through that decision, On going through the said decision, we find that itis correctly decided. We agree with the reasons given in support of the said decision. It w—e