SHANTILAL MOHANLAL SHAH vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
Reserved On : 25/03/2026
Pronounced On : 08/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 823 of 2013
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/3184/2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
======================================
SHANTILAL MOHANLAL SHAH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 1,3.1,3.2,3.8,4.1,4.2,4.4,4.5
MR APURVA VAKIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR
KARTIKEY KANOJIYA with MR DILIP L KANOJIYA(3691) for
the Appellant(s) No.
2,2.1,2.2,3,3.3,3.3.1,3.3.2,3.3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7,4,4.3
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Page 1 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This is an intra-court appeal directed against the
judgment and order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition challenging the
order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad
upholding the order passed by the ceiling authority under the
Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (in short ‘the
Ceiling Act’ 1960’). The appellants herein are referred as the
petitioners herein, for the sake of clarity.
2. The undisputed facts, which can be disearned from the
judgment impugned are that the proceedings under the
Ceiling Act’ 1960 was initiated on a form filled by one person
as a partner of the firm namely, B. Shantilal & Co. declaring
that the firm was holding agricultural land (the land in
question) at village Chiklota, Taluka Valia, District Bharuch.
The said form was processed and ultimately the Mamlatdar &
ALT vide order dated 18.04.1983 declared the land
admeasuring 56 Acres and 30 Gunthas surplus land under
Section 21(1)(2) of the Ceiling Act’ 1960. This order was
carried in appeal before the Deputy Collector, who by an
order dated 13.08.1984 rejected the Appeal No.10 of 1984. In
Revision Application, being B.A. Nos.1329 of 1984 and 1534
of 1984, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide common order
dated 27.06.1988 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar,
Krushi Panch with a direction to decide afresh. In the remand
Page 2 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
proceedings, Mamlatdar, Krushi Panch vide order dated
27.06.1988 has declared the land in question as a surplus
land, against which the appeal before the Deputy Collector
was rejected on 17.07.1989. In the second round before the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the Revision Application was
allowed on 28.06.1983 and the matter was again remanded
for deciding afresh.
3. In the remand proceedings, Mamlatdar, Krushi Panch
passed an order dated 30.09.1993 deciding to withdraw the
notice issued by the Collector, Bharuch. The Deputy Collector
vide order dated 24.04.1994 had confirmed the order of the
Mamlatdar, Krushi Panch, against which revision was
preferred by the State before the tribunal.
4. In the revision proceedings, it was argued by the
petitioners herein before the revenue tribunal that there were
four partners, who were cultivating the land in question and
the partnership firm having no right to hold the agricultural
land, cannot be given only one unit of land to declare the
remaining land as excess or surplus. The four partners are
required to allocate one unit each being individual owners as
co-owners of the land in question and if that is done, no land
can be declared as surplus.
5. The State, on the other hand, pressed that the land
being jointly held by four partners in the name of the
partnership firm, they can get only one unit and excess land of
more than 45 Acres (allocated to one unit) is to be declared as
Page 3 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
surplus.
6. The said revision has been allowed by the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 05.03.2003 setting aside
the orders of the Deputy Collector and restoring the first
order of the Mamlatdar dated 18.04.1983, declaring the area
admeasuring 56 Acres and 30 Gunthas as surplus land under
the Ceiling Act’ 1960, which has led to the filing of the writ
petition, out of which the present appeal has arisen.
7. The learned Single Judge upon giving due consideration
to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, in the
facts of the present case has concluded in paragraphs ‘10’ and
‘11’ as under:-
“10. If the facts of the present case are examined, it is
not a matter where two or more persons, without any
purpose or object, had purchased the property in the
joint name, but is a case where the partnership firm was
formed and the land was purchased. Not only that but
the partnership firm had filed the form through its
partners. It is hardly required to be stated that when a
partnership firm is formed, the same is as a joint venture
by all partners of the firm with an object to earn profit or
gain. Further, the partnership firm is governed by the
statute under the partnership Act. The rights of the
partners and the liabilities of the partners are, inter se,
inter-linked and inter-connected. Hence, the partnership
firm could be termed as a body of individuals or an
association of persons, even if not incorporated to be
included in the definition of ‘a person’ and the same can
rather be read in contradistinction to the cases where
two or more persons jointly purchased the property
without any joint venture for earning income, profit or
gain.
Page 4 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
11. Therefore, it appears that the view taken by the
Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. It is hardly
required to be stated that in a petition under Article 227
of the Constitution arising from the order of the
Tribunal, scope of judicial scrutiny is limited. Even if two
views are possible, Court may decline interference to the
order of the lower authority. In the present case, the
view of the Tribunal is not only based on the view taken
by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred
Letters Patent Appeal, but is also getting support from
the above referred decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
(supra) . Under these circumstances, it appears that the
order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the
present petition does not deserve to be interfered with.”
8. The findings returned by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
as affirmed by the learned Single Judge holding that the
partnership firm could be termed as a body of individual or an
association of persons even if not incorporated, is to be
included in the definition of a “person”, has to be read in
contradiction to the cases where two or more persons jointly
purchased the property without any joint venture for earning
income, profit or gain, in light of the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others
[(2008) 5 SCC 449] , is subject matter of challenge before us
in this Appeal.
9. Assailing the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge,
Mr. Apurva Vakil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant would argue:-
(i) The partnership firm is not a legal entity and hence
cannot be included in the definition of a “person” as
Page 5 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
contemplated under Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act’ 1960.
(ii) The petitioners (four in numbers) cannot be termed to be
an “association of persons / body of individuals” so as to
consider them as one single “person”, entitled only to one unit
under the Ceiling Act’ 1960.
(iii) The statement under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act’ 1960
was furnished by one of the four individuals-petitioners
herein, on behalf of others, in the name of partnership firm –
B. Shantilal & Co.
(iv) The partnership firm is not a separate legal entity / a
person much less capable of “holding land” so as to “cultivate
it personally”, as contemplated under Section 2(12) of the
Ceiling Act’ 1960.
(v) Four joint owners are individual holders of agricultural
land and they are entitled to one unit each. Consequently,
there would be no surplus agricultural land in excess of
ceiling limit.
(vi) Referring to the definition of Sections 2(16) and 2(21) of
“joint family” and “ person”, it was argued that besides these
words, other words defined in Section 2 of the Ceiling Act’
1960 such as, “agriculturists”; “appointed day”; “to
cultivate”; “to cultivate personally”; “to hold land”; “land”;
“surplus land”; “tenant” and “landlord”, as also the relevant
tenancy laws are to be looked into to understand the meaning
Page 6 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
of the word “person” included in the Ceiling Act’ 1960, for the
purposes of Section 6 of the said Act.
(vii) Placing the word “person” defined in Section 3(35) of the
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, it was argued that the
definition therein can be imported into the definition of
“person” under Section 2(21) read with Section 2(16) of the
Ceiling Act’ 1960. However, the said general definition is to
be either modified or restricted or expanded in different
statutes, with reference to the object of enactment or context
in which it is used (referring paragraphs ‘24’ and ‘25’ of the
Apex Court in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) .
(viii) It was argued that in the above context, the observations
in paragraph ‘28’ of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others
(supra) assume significance, which read as under:-
“28……... For example, when the word “person” occurs
in a statute relating to agriculture or ceiling on
landholding, the term “association of persons/body of
individuals” may refer to a combination of individuals
who join together to acquire and own land as co-owners
and carry on agricultural operations as a joint
enterprise.”
(ix) Placing paragraph ‘25’ in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and
Others (supra) it was argued that the word “person” in the
Ceiling Act’ 1960 referred therein has been considered,
unless the context otherwise requires in the following
manner:-
“25..….
Page 7 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
(i) a natural human being;
(ii) any legal entity which is capable of possessing rights
and duties, including any company or association of
persons or body of individuals (whether incorporated or
not); and
(iii) a Hindu Undivided Family or any other group or unit
of persons, the members of which by custom or usage,
are joint in estate and residence.”
(x) Placing the meaning assigned to the word “person” in
the Ceiling Act’ 1960, in clause (ii) in paragraph ‘25’ of
Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) extracted
hereinabove, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners that the said clause refers to a “legal entity,
which is capable of possessing rights and duties”. However,
the partnership firm within the meaning of Section 4 of the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 cannot be treated as a “legal
entity” so as to include it in the definition of a “person”, so as
to be entitled to only one unit in the ceiling proceedings.
(xi) It was vehemently argued that the partnership firm
cannot “cultivate personally” as understood under Section
2(12) of the Ceiling Act’ 1960 and it is not capable of holding
an agricultural land possessing rights and duties therein. In
that context, in view of the expansive meaning given to the
definition of the word “person” under the Ceiling Act’ 1960,
by employing the definition of “person” under the Bombay
General Clauses Act 1904 by the Apex Court to hold that “any
legal entity, which is capable of possessing rights and duties
including any company or association of persons or body of
individual (whether incorporated or not)” would not cover a
Page 8 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
partnership firm. Besides that, the partnership firm would not
fall in any of the other two clauses (i) and (iii) narrated in
paragraph ‘25’ of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others
(supra) extracted hereinabove, to include such persons
within the meaning of “person” defined under the Ceiling Act’
1960.
(xii) Elaborating further, it was argued that four individuals /
petitioners herein cannot be considered as “association of
persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or
not”, as stressed upon by the learned Single Judge in the
judgment impugned.
(xiii) It was submitted that the mere combination of persons
or coming together of persons without anything more, without
any intention to have a joint venture or to carry on some
common activity with a common understanding and purpose,
will not convert two or more persons into a body of
individuals. An association of persons or a body of individuals
is one in which two or more persons join in a common purpose
and common action to achieve some common benefit. The
common object will have some relevance to determine where
a group or set of persons is an association of persons or body
of individuals, with reference to a particular statue.
(xiv) It was submitted that in paragraph ’28’ of Ramanlal
Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) it is observed that when
the word “person” occurs in a statue relating to agriculture or
ceiling on land holding, an association of persons / body of
Page 9 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
individuals may refer to “a combination of individuals, who
join together to acquire and own land as co-owners and carry
on agricultural operations as a joint enterprise”, they can be
considered in the inclusive definition of “person” under the
Ceiling Act’ 1960. However, in the present case, there is
absolutely no evidence on record to establish or even
demonstrate that any of these conditions, referred to in
paragraph “28” of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others
(supra) are fulfilled in the facts of the present case.
(xv) It was argued that the partnership firm namely, B.
Shantilal & Co. was formed as far back as in 1930. A copy of
the deed dated 15.01.1930 was placed before us during the
course of argument as Anneuxre-‘1’ to the written
submissions, to argue that the said deed evidences the
relationship between four petitioners. However, it nowhere
remotely or otherwise suggest that the partners have joined
together to acquire and own land as co-owners and carry on
“agricultural operations” as a joint enterprise. Infact, as per
the said deed, four partners (petitioners herein) were to carry
on business of cloth in the name of B. Shantilal & Co., and
also to do business of manufacturing of soap and chemicals in
the name of Hindia Soap and Chemical Works.
(xvi) It was submitted that it is to be noted that the land in
question was purchased only in the year 1939 (nine years
after the deed was executed). There is no evidence, much less
any inquiry having been conducted by any authority to
ascertain if the petitioners have joined together to acquire
Page 10 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
and own land as co-owners and carry on agricultural
operations as a joint enterprise. There is also no evidence of
any joint cultivation of the land nor any intention of having
any joint venture.
(xvii) In this scenario, the petitioners cannot be considered to
be association of persons / body of individuals and, thus,
cannot be termed as “one single person” under the Ceiling
Act’ 1960 as interpreted by the Apex Court Ramanlal Bhailal
Patel and Others (supra) .
(xviii)The contention is that the Apex Court in the case of
Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) , had remanded
the matter back while setting aside the order of the High
Court (this very Court) with the directions to the authorities
below to decide the matter afresh with certain directions
therein. However, if the arguments of the petitioners herein
are accepted, this case is not even worth remand as no fruitful
purpose would be served of making any inquiry at this stage
when the lands were purchased far as back as in the year
1939 and all the four original purchasers have since passed
away.
(xix) Commenting on the reasoning giving by the learned
Single Judge and the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, it
was submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in
observing in paragraph ‘11’ that the view of the tribunal is
getting support from the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) .
Page 11 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
(xx) The learned Single Judge was, however, required to
assess / evaluate the impugned order of the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal independently before forming any opinion on the
basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) .
(xxi) With these submissions, it was vehemently argued that
four petitioners are required to be treated as four separate
(individuals) “persons” for the purpose of the Ceiling Act’
1960 and each of them will thereby be entitled to one unit
under the Ceiling Act’ 1960 and if that is done, there will be
no land in excess of ceiling limit under the Ceiling Act’ 1960.
(xxii) It was, thus, submitted that while allowing the present
appeal both the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the
impugned order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are liable to
be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed to
issue direction to the respondents authorities to drop the
proceedings under the Ceiling Act’ 1960 by allocating one unit
to each of the four petitioners, who are individual land holders
of the agricultural lands, subject matter of the ceiling
proceedings.
10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the State – respondents heavily relying upon the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and
Others (supra) would submit, in rebuttal, that all these
arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
Page 12 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
deserve to be rejected from a bare reading of the judgment
wherein the Apex Court has interpreted the meaning of the
word “person” so as to include “an association or person or
body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, joining in a
common purpose and common action to achieve some
common benefits”. The submission is that the common object
will have relevance to determine whether a group or set of
persons is an association of persons or body of individuals
with reference to the Ceiling Act’ 1960.
11. Having considered the submissions of the learned
Counsels for the parties and perused the record, at the outset,
we may set out the relevant provisions of the Ceiling Act’
1960 as under:-
“2. In this Act, unless the context requires
otherwise-
(11) "to cultivate" with its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions means to till or husband the land
for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural
produce, whether by manual labour or by means of
cattle or machinery or to carry on any agricultural
operation thereon ;
Explanation.-A person who enters into a contract only to
cut grass or to gather the fruits or other produce of
trees, on any land, shall not on that account only; be
deemed to cultivate such land;
(12) "to cultivate personally", means to cultivate land on
one's own account—
(i) by one's own labour, or
(ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or
Page 13 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
(iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any
member or one's family by hired labour or by servants
on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share:
Explanation I.—A widow or a minor or a person who is
subject to any physical or mental disability; or a serving
member of the armed forces shall be deemed to cultivate
land personally; if such land is cultivated by her or his
servants or hired labour;
Explanation II.-In the case of a joint family, land shall be
deemed to be cultivated personally, if it is so cultivated
by any member of such family;”
(28) "surplus land" means land which is deemed to be or
declared to be surplus land under the provisions of this
Act:
12. We may also take note of the provisions of Section 6 of
the Ceiling Act’ 1960 as under:
“6. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law
for the time being in force or in any agreement, usage or
decree or order of a Court, with effect, from the
appointed day no person shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-sections (2), (3), (3A) and (3B) be entitled to hold
whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner and
partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area.
(2) Where an individual, who holds lands, is a member of
a family, not being a joint family which consists of the
individual and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and
their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters,
irrespective of whether the family also includes any
major son and land is also separately held by such
individual's spouse or minor children, then the land held
by the individual and the said members of the
individual's family excluding major sons, if any shall be
grouped together for the purposes of this Act and the
provisions of this Act shall apply to the total land so
grouped together as if such land had been held by one
person.
Page 14 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
(3) Where on the appointed day a person holds exempted
land along with other land then,
(i) if the area of exempted land is equal to or more than
the ceiling area he shall not be entitled to hold other
land; and
(ii) if the area of exempted land is less than the ceiling
area, he shall not be entitled to hold other land in excess
of the area by which the exempted land is less than the
ceiling area.
(3A) Where any person holds any land in any other part
of the India outside the State, then, the area of land so
held by him in such other part, not exceeding the
maximum area of land which such person is entitled to
hold in such other part of India under any law, if any,
relating to ceiling on land, used or capable of being used
for agricultural purposes, shall be excluded from the
ceiling area in excess of which a person is not entitled to
hold land under this section and the extent of land
determined after so excluding such area shall in relation
to such person, be deemed to be the ceiling area, to be
held by him in this State :
Provided that where any such person disposes of, at any
time before the determination of ceiling area under this
Act, any land or part thereof so held by him in any other
part of India outside the State, in accordance with the
provisions of law in force in such part, the area equal to
the land or part thereof so disposed of shall not be
excluded while determining the ceiling area under this
sub-section.
(3B) Where a family or a joint family consist 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,
Page 15 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
(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 one-fifth 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 that if any land is held separately also by any
member of such family, the land so held separately by
such member shall be grouped together with the land to
such family for the purpose of determining the total
holding of such family :
Provided further that where, in consequence of any
member of such family holding any land in any other
part of India outside the State, the ceiling area in
relation to the family is reduced as provided in sub-
section (3-A) the one-fifth of the ceiling area as aforesaid
shall be calculated with reference to the ceiling area as
would have been applicable had no such land been held
by such member in any other part of India.
(3-C) Where a family or a joint family irrespective of the
number of members includes a major son, then each
major son shall be deemed to be a separate person for
the purposes of sub-section (1).
(3-D) For the purpose of sub-section (2), (3B) or (3C), the
members comprised in a family or as the case may be, a
joint family on the specified date shall alone be taken
into consideration and any changes in the character or
number of members of the family occurring thereafter
shall be ignored.
(4) Land in this State which under the foregoing
provisions of this section a person is not entitled to hold
shall be deemed to be surplus land held by such person.
Page 16 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
13. Proceeding further, we are required to first go through
the decision of the Apex Court in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel
and Others (supra) , which is basis of the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned.
14. On a careful reading of the said decision, we may note
relevant facts of the said case as under:-
(i) It was a case where five persons (appellants before the
Apex Court) along with their respective spouses purchased
certain agricultural lands under four sale deeds. Before such
purchase, the ten purchasers (in total) entered into an
agreement proposing to purchase the entire area of land in
their joint name and recording the conditions subject to which
they proposed to purchase the land. The reasons stated in the
agreement for the joint purchase was to avoid each of them
having to individually negotiate and enter into separate
agreements with several owners of the land. They agreed
that one of them would be authorized to hold negotiations and
go through the procedural requirements for the purchase; and
that after purchasing the land in their names, they would
divide the lands equally as early as possible.
(ii) They had also agreed that there will be no collective or
joint cultivation of the land proposed to be purchased by
them. The agreement also recorded the division of total land
purchased by them into ten portions among them and that
they would get their names registered in the revenue records
Page 17 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
as per the division.
(iv) Subsequently, on their applications, mutation entry was
made showing each co-owner as the separate owner of the
lands, respectively allotted to him / her vide Hakpatrak
(Village Form No.6) issued by the land revenue authorities.
(v) A notice under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act’ 1960 was
issued to the co-owners seeking particulars of the lands held
by them, to determine whether they held any surplus land.
The Mamlatdar passed an order under Section 21 of the
Ceiling Act’ 1960 holding that each couple (husband and wife
together) were entitled to one unit, and therefore, five couples
were entitled to hold five units and, thus, declared 1 Acre and
31 Gunthas as surplus land and vest the same in the
Government.
(vi) The Deputy Collector, Dabhoi, in exercise of suo motu
power of revision under Section 37 of the Ceiling Act’ 1960
made determination by holding that the group of persons or
association of persons purchasing agricultural lands together,
had to be treated as a “person” under the Ceiling Act’ 1960,
and therefore, they could jointly hold only one unit in view of
the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act’ 1960. The
surplus land of 145 Acres and 31 Gunthas was, thus, declared
and the Mamlatdar was directed to obtain selection of the
land to be surrendered.
(vii) The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal upheld the decision of the
Page 18 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
Collector, by applying the definition of “person” in the
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, to the word “person” in
the Ceiling Act’ 1960.
(viii) In this context, the matter reached to this Court (Gujarat
High Court) where the learned Single Judge had allowed the
petition and remanded the matter to the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal to decide whether the definition of “person” in the
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 could be imported into the
definition of a “person” under the Ceiling Act’ 1960. This
order was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench
wherein the Court had held that there was no need for
remand as the question whether the definition of “person”
included an association of persons was a pure question of law
which can be decided by the High Court.
(ix). However, reading the definition of “person” in the
General Clauses Act, 1904 into the definition of “person” in
the Ceiling Act’ 1960, the decision of the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal treating ten co-owners as an association of persons,
and consequently, a “person” for the purpose of the Ceiling
Act’ 1960, it was held by the Division Bench that ten co-
owners are entitled to only one unit (36 Acres) and there was
no error in the order of the tribunal. The matter then reached
to the Apex Court wherein the following questions were
framed for consideration:-
Page 19 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
“15. On the contentions raised, the following questions
arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the definition of “person” in the Gujarat
Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, includes a body of
individuals/association of persons?
(ii) Whether co-ownership, per se, is an “association of
persons/body of individuals” and therefore constitutes a
“person”?
(iii) 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?
(iv) 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?
(v) 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?”
15. For our purpose, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the answer to question No.(i) is to be noted at
the outset.
16. Question No.(i) has been answered by the Apex Court in
the following manner:-
Page 20 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
“Question (i) — Who is a “person”?
22. The extent of land that could be held by the
appellants depends upon the interpretation of the word
“person” in Section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act which
provides that “no person shall … be entitled to hold …
land in excess of the ceiling area”. If the ten co-owners
are considered as an “association of persons” or “body of
individuals”, and consequently as a “person”, then the
ten co-owners together as a person, will be entitled to
only one unit of land which is the ceiling area per
person. But if “association of persons” or “body of
individuals” is not a “person”, or if a co-ownership is not
an association of person/body of individuals, then each
co-owner or the family of each co-owner, as the case may
be will be a separate “person” having regard to the
definition of person in Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act, in
which event, each family will be entitled to hold one unit
of land.
23. The word “person” is defined in the Act, but it is an
inclusive definition, that is, “a person includes a joint
family”. Where the definition is an inclusive definition,
the use of the word “includes” indicates an intention to
enlarge the meaning of the word used in the statute.
Consequently, the word must be construed as
comprehending not only such things which they signify
according to their natural import, but also those things
which the interpretation clause declares that they shall
include. Thus, where a definition uses the word
“includes”, as contrasted from “means”, the word
defined not only bears its ordinary, popular and natural
meaning, but in addition also bears the extended
statutory meaning (see S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain [(1979) 3
SCC 54 : AIR 1979 SC 734]
following Dilworth v. Commr. of Stamps [1899 AC 99 :
(1895-99) All ER Rep Ext 1576 : 79 LT 473]
and Jobbins v. Middlesex Country Council [(1949) 1 KB
142 : (1948) 2 All ER 610 (CA)] ).
Page 21 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
24. The ordinary, popular and natural meaning of the
word “person” is “a specific individual human being”.
But in law the word “person” has a slightly different
connotation and refers to any entity that is recognised
by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.
Salmond defines “person” as “any being whom the law
regards as capable of rights and duties” or as “a being,
whether human or not, of which rights and duties are
the attributes” (Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., p. 299). Thus
the word “person”, in law, unless otherwise intended,
refers not only to a natural person (male or female
human being), but also any legal person (that is an entity
that is recognised by law as having or capable of having
rights and duties). The General Clauses Act thus defines
a “person” as including a corporation or an association
of persons or a body of individuals whether incorporated
or not. The said general legal definition is, however,
either modified or restricted or expanded in different
statutes with reference to the object of the enactment or
the context in which it is used. For instance, the
definition of the word “person” in the Income Tax Act, is
very wide and includes an individual, a Hindu Undivided
Family, a company, a firm, an association of persons or
body of individuals whether incorporated or not, a local
authority and every other artificial juridical person. At
the other extreme is the Citizenship Act, Section 2(f) of
which reads thus: ‘ “Person” does not include any
company or association or body of individuals whether
incorporated or not.’ Similarly, the definition under
Section 2(g) of the Representation of People Act, 1950,
is “person” does not include a body of persons.
25. 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.
Therefore the definition of person in the Ceiling Act,
Page 22 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
would include the definition of person in Section 3(35) of
the General Clauses Act. The resultant position can be
stated thus: the definition of person in the General
Clauses Act, being an inclusive definition, would include
the ordinary, popular and general meaning and those
specifically included in the definition. The inclusive
definition of “person” in the Ceiling Act, in the absence
of any exclusion, would have the same meaning assigned
to the word in the General Clauses Act, and in addition,
a “joint family” as defined. Thus, the word “person” in
the Ceiling Act will, unless the context otherwise
requires, refer to:
(i) a natural human being;
(ii) any legal entity which is capable of possessing
rights and duties, including any company or
association of persons or body of individuals
(whether incorporated or not); and
(iii) a Hindu Undivided Family or any other group
or unit of persons, the members of which by
custom or usage, are joint in estate and residence.
26. We are fortified in this view by the decision of this
Court in Hasmukhlal Dahayabhai v. State of
Gujarat [(1976) 4 SCC 100] wherein this Court had
occasion to consider the definition of “person” in the
Ceiling Act, in a different context. It was contended in
that case that in view of the definition of “person” in the
General Clauses Act, 1897, a Central enactment, that is,
“person” shall include any company or association or
body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, there
cannot be a different definition in the Ceiling Act, and
therefore, Section 6(2) of the Ceiling Act treating family
as a “person” was unconstitutional. It was pointed out
that Section 6(2) had the effect of making a person who
held land within ceiling limit, to lose part of his/her
holding, on marriage to someone who also held land
within ceiling limit. (For example, if a bachelor who was
holding 35 acres of land which is within ceiling limit,
married someone who held 20 acres, they will together
lose 19 acres by reason of the fact that they formed a
“family”.) This Court negatived the challenge to the
definition of “person”. In that context this Court
Page 23 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
observed that the term “person” is not, strictly speaking,
defined in the Act, and the definition merely clarified
that the term includes a joint family and did not exclude
an individual from being a person in the eye of the law.
This Court observed that the term “person” for the
purposes of the Ceiling Act would include individuals as
natural persons as well as group or body of individuals
as artificial persons, as also a joint family and a family.
This Court proceeded to explain Section 6(2) thus: (SCC
p. 106, para 16)
“16. We do not find any fixed concept of ‘person’
anywhere. No doubt the concept is wide so that it
could be contended that it should not be narrowed
down or confined. But, does Section 6(2) do that?
Section 6(2) does not either disable a husband or
wife from owning or holding their separate
properties separately. It does not merge or destroy
their separate legal personalities. It requires their
separate holdings to be grouped together as
though they were held by one person only for the
purpose of determining the ceiling limit for each
member of a family. It may indirectly have the
effect of disabling a member of a family from
holding land up to the prescribed ceiling limit for a
person holding as an individual. In other words, the
result is that such a member of a family will have to
be content with a holding less than that of an
unmarried individual. It has the effect of making it
clear that what have to be grouped together are
the separate properties of individuals belonging to
families other than what are ‘joint families’ in law.
It takes in and applies to members of families other
than undivided Hindu families. It means that
married persons and their minor children will have
to be viewed as though they hold one lot together
even though they retain their separate legal
personalities and remain competent owners of their
separate holdings. It does not affect either their
legal status or competence. It does reduce their
individual holdings.””
17. Further, while answering the question No.(ii) whether
Page 24 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
the co-owners are together a “person”, the observations in
paragraphs ‘28’ and ‘29’ in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and
Others (supra) are also relevant to be noted as under:-
“28. The terms “association of persons” and “body of
individuals” (which are interchangeable) have a legal
connotation and refer to an entity having rights and
duties. They are not to be understood literally. For
example, if half a dozen people are travelling in a car or
a boat, or standing in a bus-stop, they may be a group of
persons or a “body of individuals” in the literal sense.
But they are not an association of persons/body of
individuals in the legal sense. When a calamity occurs or
a disaster strikes, and a band of volunteers or doctors
meet at the site and associate or cooperate with each
other for providing relief to victims, and not doing
anything for their own benefit, they may literally be an
association of persons, but they are not “an association
of persons/body of individuals” in the legal sense. A
mere combination of persons or coming together of
persons without anything more, without any intention to
have a joint venture or carry on some common activity
with a common understanding and purpose will not
convert two or more persons into a body of
individuals/association of persons. An “association of
persons/body of individuals” is one in which two or more
persons join in a common purpose and common action to
achieve some common benefit. Where there is a
combination of individuals by volition of the parties,
engaged together in some joint enterprise or venture, it
is known as “association of persons/body of individuals”.
The common object will have some relevance to
determine whether a group or set of persons is an
association of persons or body of individuals with
reference to a particular statute. For example, when the
said terms “association of persons” or “body of
individuals” occur in a section which imposes a tax on
income, the association must be one the object of which
is to produce income, profit or gain (vide CIT v. Indira
Balkrishna [AIR 1960 SC 1172] , Mohd.
Noorulla v. CIT [AIR 1961 SC 1043] , N.V. Shanmugam
Page 25 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
and Co. v. CIT [(1970) 2 SCC 139 : AIR 1970 SC 1707]
and Meera and Co. v. CIT [(1997) 4 SCC 677] ). But the
object need not always be to carry on commercial or
business activity. For example, when the word “person”
occurs in a statute relating to agriculture or ceiling on
landholding, the term “association of persons/body of
individuals” may refer to a combination of individuals
who join together to acquire and own land as co-owners
and carry on agricultural operations as a joint
enterprise.
29. Normally, where a group of persons have not become
co-owners by their own volition with a common purpose,
they cannot be considered as a “person”. When the
children of the owner of a property succeed to his
property by testamentary succession or inherit by
operation of law, they become co-owners, but the co-
ownership is not by volition of parties nor do they have
any common purpose. Each can act in regard to his/her
share, on his/her own, without any right or obligation
towards the other owners. The legal heirs though co-
owners, do not automatically become an “association of
persons/body of individuals”. 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.
Similarly, when two or more persons merely purchase a
property, under a common sale deed, without any
agreement to have a common or joint venture, they will
not become an “association of persons/body of
individuals”. Mere purchase under a common deed
without anything more, will not convert a co-ownership
into a joint enterprise. Thus when there are ten co-
owners of a property, they are ten persons and not a
“body of individuals” to be treated as a “single person”.
But if the co-owners proceed further and enter into an
arrangement or agreement to have a joint enterprise or
venture to produce a common result for their benefit,
then the co-owners may answer the definition of a
“person”.
Page 26 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
18. The answer to question No.(iii) whether the ten
purchasers constitute a “person”, by the Apex Court is in
paragraph “30” and “31” as under:-
30. We will now examine whether a group of individuals
purchasing agricultural land jointly as co-owners, not
with the intention of retaining the property in co-
ownership and carrying on agricultural activities jointly,
nor with the intention of managing it as a joint venture,
nor with the intention of holding it together to generate
income, profit or gain, but solely with the intention of
dividing the land so purchased and hold their respective
shares separately and individually, can be considered as
a “person” for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. The
Tribunal and the High Court have proceeded on the
basis that the ten purchasers constituted an “association
of persons” and therefore a separate juristic person. Let
us examine whether the said conclusion is correct.
31. Instead of buying the land (172 acres 36 guntas)
jointly under the four sale deeds it was open to the ten
persons to have bought the lands individually, that is
each of them purchasing such extent of land as he or she
wanted. If they had registered the sale deeds
individually (subject to each of them being entitled to
buy agricultural land, under the land reforms laws in
force) each couple would have been entitled to hold land
to the extent of one unit. Instead of each individual or
couple purchasing the land in their respective names, if
for convenience in negotiations, ten individuals buy the
land jointly, the position will be no different. It cannot be
said that merely because the sale deed is in the joint
names of ten persons, they purchased the land as “an
association of persons” or as “body of individuals” with
the common intention of carrying on agricultural
activities jointly or producing income, profit or gain or
carry on some common joint venture. In fact before
purchasing the lands, the ten persons had entered into
an agreement placing on record that the object of
purchasing the lands jointly was only to facilitate
negotiations and avoid duplicating the purchase
procedures and not to cultivate them jointly. There is no
Page 27 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
evidence of any joint cultivation, nor any evidence of any
intention to have a joint venture. On the other hand,
after purchase, they divided the lands and informed the
Land Revenue Authorities and each co-owner was
registered as the owner of the respective land allotted to
him/her. This is not a case where a body of individuals
purchased the land with the intention of having a
continued community of interest by way of a joint
venture or as a business venture. It is therefore not
possible to treat the ten purchasers as an “association of
persons/body of individuals” nor is it permissible to treat
them as a single “person”, thereby restricting their
entitlement to hold land to only one unit, even though
there are ten purchasers.”
19. It is worthy to note that with the above observations, in
the facts of the said case therein, it was held by the Apex
Court that both the tribunal and the High Court were right in
holding that the word “person” in the Ceiling Act’ 1960
includes an “association of persons / body of individuals”, but
they were not justified in treating the co-owners as an
association of persons, or in holding that the ten co-owners
will be entitled to own only one unit. Further having regard
to Section 6(2) of the Ceiling Act’ 1960, it was observed that
the share of each couple (husband and wife) in the land, plus
any other land individually held by them will have to be
calculated to find out whether they held any land in excess of
the ceiling limit. Thus, considering the effect of Section 8 of
the Ceiling Act’ 1960, it was observed in paragraph ‘34’ that,
in the facts of the said case, the exclusion of the partition may
not have any significant effect because the ten co-owners
together are not to be treated as a person, the share of the co-
owner will have to be calculated and the lands individually
Page 28 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
held by such co-owner will have to be added to determine his
holding. The holdings of the person with that of his spouse
and minor sons and unmarried daughter will have to be
aggregated to determine the surplus. The matter was,
therefore, remanded back with the directions as under:
“36. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the
orders of the High Court as also that of the authorities
below. As a consequence, we direct the Mamlatdar:
(a) to decide whether any of the ten purchasers is a
non-agriculturist and if so, the extent of transfer in
favour of such non-agriculturist which will be invalid and
pass consequential orders in respect of such land in
accordance with law;
(b) to determine whether any of the ten purchasers
who are agriculturists, holds excess land by considering
their share in the lands purchased as co-owners, with
other lands as provided in Sections 6 to 8 of the Ceiling
Act, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law.”
20. In light of the above observations and directions issued
by the Apex Court, in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others
(supra) in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, the questions which has arisen before us are:-
(a) Whether the four petitioners herein can be said to be co-
owners of agricultural land having individual rights in the land
jointly purchased by them so as to exclude them from the
meaning of “association of persons / body of individuals”,
within the meaning of Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act’ 1960
Page 29 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
read with the definition of “person” under Section 3(35) of the
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904.
(b) In other words, whether the four original petitioners can
be said to be “person” included in the meaning assigned to
the word “person” by the Apex Court in clause (ii) in
paragraph ‘25’ as noted hereinabove.
21. The answer to both these questions would be common
for us, inasmuch as, there is no dispute about the fact that the
land in question was purchased in the name of partnership
firm, which was incorporated prior to the purchase, (i.e. in the
year 1939). The form submitted by one of the partners of the
firm under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act’ 1960 was also in the
name of partnership firm, which fact itself is evidence to hold
that four individuals joined together to form an association to
acquire and own land in the name of partnership firm to carry
on agricultural operations as a joint enterprise. The common
intention of four original petitioners to come together by their
own volition with the common purpose to have a joint
enterprise or venture to hold and cultivate agricultural land to
produce a common result for the benefit of the partnership
firm is evident from the mere fact that the land was purchased
in the name of the partnership firm and ceiling form under
Section 10 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 was filed with the
declaration that the agricultural land is of the partnership
firm. The fact that the names of four individuals (petitioners
herein) were recorded in the revenue record and that the
partnership firm cannot be said to be a legal entity, legally
Page 30 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
entitled “to hold and cultivate an agriculture land”, would
have no relevance for the purposes of the Ceiling Act’ 1960.
22. As held by the Apex Court in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel
and Others (supra) the question to be examined by us is as
to whether a group of four individuals purchasing agricultural
land in the name of partnership firm, can be said to have
come together with the intention of retaining the land as
individuals to carry on agricultural activity individually or with
an intention of holding and managing it as a joint venture,
with the intention to generate income, profit and gain for the
purpose of partnership firm. In other words, can it be said
that they have come together to purchase the land solely with
the intention of holding their respective shares separately and
individually, so as to not to include them in “association of
persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not”
within the meaning of Section 3(35) of the Bombay General
Clauses Act, 1904, imported in Section 2(21) of the Ceiling
Act’ 1960 by the Apex Court in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and
Others (supra) .
23 . In view of the answer to question No.(i) in Ramanlal
Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) the “person” defined
under Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act, 1960 includes
“association of persons and body of individuals”, whether
incorporated or not (which are interchangeable).
24. It is clarified by the Apex Court while answering
question No.(ii) “whether co-owners are together a “person”,
Page 31 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
that an “association of persons / body of individuals is one in
which two or more persons join in a common purpose and
common action to achieve some common benefit. Where
there is a combination of individuals by their volition, engaged
together in some joint enterprise or venture, it is known as
“association of persons / body of individuals”. The common
object will have some relevance to determine whether a group
or set of persons in an association of persons or body of
individuals with reference to a particular statute. For
example, when the word “person” occur in a statute relating
to agriculture or ceiling on landholding, the term “association
of person / body of individuals” may refer to a combination of
individuals who join together to acquire and own land as co-
owners and carry on agricultural operations as a joint
enterprise.
25. While making a distinction between “association of
persons / body of individuals” with the co-owners, it was
observed therein that where a group of persons have not
become co-owners by their own volition with a common
purpose, they cannot be considered as a “person”. Similarly,
when two or more persons merely purchase a property under
a common sale deed, without any agreement to have a
common or joint venture, they will not become “association of
persons / body of individuals”. Mere purchase under a
common deed without anything more, will not convert a co-
ownership into a joint enterprise.
26. However, if the co-owners proceed further and enter
Page 32 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
into an arrangement or agreement to have a joint enterprise
or venture to produce a common result for their benefit, then
the co-owners may answer the definition of a “person”. To
the contrary, when different persons buy undivided shares in
a plot of land and engage a common developer to construct an
apartment building of and 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 absence of
deeming provisions in a statute or an agreement.
27. In light of this meaning assigned by the Apex Court to
the terms “association of persons” and “body of individuals”,
in paragraphs ‘28’ and ‘29’ of the judgment in Ramanlal
Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) , we are required to see
whether four petitioners herein grouped together who
purchased agricultural land in the name of a partnership firm
namely, B. Shantilal & Co. would be covered within the
meaning of the term “association of persons / body of
individuals”.
28. To answer this, it is noteworthy that the petitioners
herein had submitted that the partnership firm was formed
vide deed dated 15.01.1930 whereby four petitioners herein
have joined together to carry on certain business of cloth
and manufacturing of soaps and chemicals under different
names. The land in question was purchased in the name of
the partnership firm after nine years of constitution of the
firm. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the
Page 33 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
petitioners is that the partners though may have joined
together to purchase some agriculture lands in the name of
partnership firm but the partnership deed does not suggest
that these partners have joined together to acquire and own
the land as co-owners and to carry on “agricultural
operations” as a joint enterprise in the name of the
partnership firm. However, it is noteworthy there is a
complete silence as to the fact whether the land was
purchased from the common pool funds of the partnership
firm or it was purchased by four petitioners coming together
by contributing money from their own pockets, individually.
29. As to the concept of formation of partnership firm which
may not be a legal entity so as to be treated as a “person” in
its own capacity, but a partnership firm can be conceived as
an association of persons or body of individuals having a
common pool of resources where two or more persons
combine capital, skills and assets to achieve a shared business
goal. Partners contribute capital based on their agreement
(deeds) which may be equal or unequal. The partners may be
silent, who may invest while others may be working partners
who manage. The pool of money along with other assets
purchased by the firm, becomes the “joint estate of all
partners” rather than belonging to any “single individual”.
Profit / loss sharing are according to the agreed ratio in the
partnership deed and if there is no agreement, they are
usually shared equally.
30. In a general partnership, partners have unlimited
Page 34 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
liability, meaning thereby that their personal assets can be
used to pay off the firms debts if the pool money is
insufficient. Further in a general partnership, all partners
normally contribute to the pool and are actively involved in
management and liability. It is essential to have a written
partnership deed to outline how the pool of money is managed
and how profits are shared, and how disputes are handled.
The registration of partnership firm is not mandatory in all
places.
31. As noted hereinabove, there is an admission of the
petitioners that the land in question was purchased in the
name of the partnership firm. From this fact, in absence of
anything to the contrary, it must be presumed that the money
from the common pool of the partnership firm was utilized to
purchase agricultural land in the name of the firm comprising
of four partners. The result is that the agricultural operations
carried over the land in question must be a shared business
and the income out of the agricultural proceeds must have
been brought into the common pool of partnership firm.
32. It seems that it is for this reason, the Ceiling form under
Section 10 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 was filled in the name of
the partnership firm being owner of the land in question. This
fact itself is sufficient to cover four petitioners into an
“association of persons and body of individuals” formed by
their own volition with the common intention of retaining the
agricultural land in co-ownership and carrying on agricultural
activities jointly, with an intention of managing the land as a
Page 35 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
joint venture, to hold it together to generate income, profit or
gain, which would go to the common pool of resources of the
partnership firm. Each of the partners of the firm become
jointly and severally entitled to profit and loss sharing, as per
the ratio agreed in the partnership deed.
33. Moreover, there is nothing on record that even after
purchase of the land in question, it was held individually by
each of the four petitioners and they carried on agricultural
activities individually, and not jointly as co-owners or partners
of the firm. There is no revenue receipt, no irrigation receipt
and no other evidence of any kind on record which would
establish that the petitioners came together solely with the
intention of purchasing the land and then holding it as per
their respective shares separately and individually.
34. From own case of the petitioners, it is evident that the
petitioners jointly purchased the agricultural land to hold it
jointly and carried on joint venture of agricultural activities as
partners, it, therefore, cannot be accepted that the land in
question was held by them individually and separately as co-
owners and not as partners. The fact that the land in question
was purchased in the name of the partnership is proof of the
land having been purchased from the common pool of money
of the partnership firm and after purchase even the land in
question will go into the common pool of assets of the
partnership firm, thus, became the “joint estate of all
partners” rather than belonging to individual four partners.
Page 36 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
35. In view of the above facts reflected from the record, the
condition of a group of person coming together to purchase
the land in their joint name, to be termed as an “association of
persons” and “body of individuals” to be included in the
definition of “person” within the meaning of Section 2(21) of
the Ceiling Act, 1960 stands fulfilled.
36. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners based on the decisions in the case of (i) Dulichand
Laxminarayan (Firm) v. CIT, [(1956) 1 SCC 269]; (ii) M/s.
Agarwal and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1970)
2 SCC 48] ; (iii) Senaji Kapurchand and Others v. Pannaji
Devichand [AIR 1930 Privy Council 300] ( iv) Ramanlal
Bhailal Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 5
SCC 449] (v) Narayan Bhimji Vadangale & Anr v.
Hukumchand Chunilal Thole & Anr. [1992 (1) GLH 135
and (v) Shantilal Mohanlal Shah & Ors V. State of
Gujarat [2013 (3) GLR 1848] that the partnership firm is
not a legal entity which can be said to be legally entitled “to
hold” or “cultivate agricultural land personally”, within the
meaning of Section 2(15) and Section 2(12) of the Ceiling Act,
1960, is neither here nor there.
37. Coming to Section 6 of the Ceiling Act, 1960, it may be
noted that the said provision recognizes only “individuals”
who is a member of a family (not being a joint family, which
consists of individual, his spouse, their minor sons and minor
unmarried daughters) and “joint family” defined in Section
2(16) as a Hindu Undivided Family or a group or unit, the
Page 37 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or
residence, to be entitled to hold land, which is not in excess of
the Ceiling area. Section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act, 1960
categorically provides that with effect from the appointed day,
no “person” shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2),
(3), (3-A) and (3-B), be entitled to hold, whether as owner or
tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant, land in excess
of the ceiling limit, notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force or in any agreement, usage or
decree or order of a Court.
38. In light of the above discussion, we do not find any
substance in the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners so as to make a distinction of this
case, from the inclusive definition of “person” under Section
2(2) of the Ceiling Act, 1960 read with Section 3(35) of the
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, as interpreted by the
Apex Court in Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and Others (supra) ,
specifically paragraph ‘25’ therein.
39. No error can be attached to the opinion of the learned
Single Judge as noted hereinabove. The present appeal
stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)
(D.N.RAY, J.)
Page 38 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026
C/LPA/823/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
FURTHER ORDER
After delivery of the order, the prayer made by Mr.
Apurva Vakil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to
stay the operation of this order and to continue the interim
order operating as on date is hereby rejected.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)
(D.N.RAY, J.)
siji
Page 39 of 39
Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Sat May 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:17:03 IST 2026