Who counts as a 'person' under the Gujarat Ceiling Act?

The Act uses an inclusive definition aligned with the General Clauses Act; it includes ordinary meanings and adds 'joint family'—but not every set of co-owners.

Are co-owners automatically an AOP/BOI?

No. Co-ownership by itself does not make an association of persons or body of individuals without a statute or agreement indicating a joint venture.

What was held about the 30-12-1971 partition?

It is deemed to have been made to defeat the 1972 amendment. Hence, it must be ignored while computing surplus land unless properly rebutted under Section 8(2).

What was remanded to the Mamlatdar?

To check whether any co-owners were non-agriculturists and to recompute each co-owner’s surplus by considering their individual shares and other holdings.

Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 449

Supreme Court of India — Who is a “person” under the Gujarat Ceiling Act? Co-ownership vs AOP/BOI, deemed partition, surplus land

Supreme Court of India 2008 (5 SCC 449) Agricultural Land Ceiling “Person” • AOP/BOI • S.8 Reading: ~7 min Author: Gulzar Hashmi

Quick Summary

Ten buyers purchased farm land together. The revenue authorities treated them as one “person” (as an AOP/BOI) under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, and computed a huge surplus. The Supreme Court said: co-ownership is not automatically an association of persons. Unless a law or agreement shows a joint venture for profit, the ten buyers remain ten separate persons. A partition made on 30-12-1971 was treated as a device to defeat the 1972 Amendment and so was ignored for surplus calculation. The case was partly remanded to decide non-agriculturist issues and recompute surplus per individual shares.

CASE_TITLE: Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 449 PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Gujarat Ceiling Act; “Person”; Co-ownership; AOP/BOI; Deemed Partition SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Surplus Land; Section 8; Mamlatdar; General Clauses Act PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Issues

Does “person” in the Gujarat Ceiling Act include an AOP/BOI and do co-owners become such a unit by default?
Do the ten purchasers together form a single person under the Act?
Is the 30-12-1971 partition deemed to defeat the 1972 Amendment under Section 8(1)? What if no application was made under Section 8(2)?
If some co-owners were non-agriculturists at purchase, can the Mamlatdar examine this when fixing surplus?

Rules

Inclusive “Person”: The General Clauses Act meaning applies unless excluded. Section 2(21) of the Ceiling Act adds “joint family”; it does not cut down the general meaning.
Co-ownership ≠ AOP/BOI: Buying undivided shares together does not, by itself, create an association/body of individuals without a deeming clause or agreement for a joint venture.
Section 8 (Ceiling Act): A partition is deemed to defeat the 1972 Amendment unless the contrary is proved by an application to the Collector (S.8(2)).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of joint purchase, partition, and revenue proceedings

Joint Plan: Five appellants and their spouses agreed to buy large agricultural land jointly to avoid multiple negotiations.

After Purchase: They recorded that price was paid equally and noted an internal division with names for records.

Mamlatdar Notice: Under Section 20, details were sought; he held each couple could hold 36 acres (C-class) → total 180 acres; surplus: 1 acre 31 guntas to vest in State.

Revision: Deputy Collector (S.37) treated all ten as one person (AOP/BOI) → only 36 acres allowed → surplus shot up to 145 acres 31 guntas.

Appeals Fail: Revenue Tribunal and High Court upheld reading of “person” to include the group.

SLP: Supreme Court was approached. Respondents also alleged the 30-12-1971 partition was to defeat the 1972 Amendment; no S.8(2) application was filed.

Arguments

Appellants

Ten names on a sale deed do not create an AOP/BOI; they are only co-owners.
“Person” must be read as in the General Clauses Act plus “joint family”; there is no repugnancy.
Surplus must be computed per individual shares, not as a single unit.

Respondents

A group purchase should be treated as one person to stop ceiling evasion.
The 1971 partition was a device to defeat the 1972 Amendment (S.8 deeming clause).
Some purchasers were non-agriculturists; transfers to them are invalid in part.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment highlighting definition of 'person' and Section 8 deeming clause

“Person” is inclusive; the Ceiling Act adopts the General Clauses Act meaning and additionally mentions joint family.
Co-owners ≠ AOP/BOI: The ten purchasers are ten persons, not one unit. No joint venture/profit purpose was shown.
Partition (30-12-1971): Deemed to defeat the 1972 Amendment → must be ignored for surplus unless disproved via S.8(2) (not done).
Remand: Mamlatdar to check non-agriculturist status and recompute surplus individually, considering each co-owner’s other lands.

Ratio Decidendi

Co-ownership does not, by itself, form an AOP/BOI. An inclusive definition of “person” covers ordinary meanings and specified inclusions; absent a deeming clause or joint-venture intent, co-owners remain separate persons. Deeming under Section 8 about partitions must be given full effect unless rebutted as prescribed.

Why It Matters

This ruling draws a clear line between co-ownership and AOP/BOI. It also shows how anti-evasion deeming clauses like Section 8 operate and how surplus must be recomputed person-wise.

Key Takeaways

“Person” is broad; Ceiling Act adds “joint family” but does not collapse co-owners into one unit.
Co-ownership alone is not AOP/BOI; look for a joint venture/profit purpose or deeming statute.
Partitions near an amendment may be deemed evasive and ignored unless timely rebutted under S.8(2).
Surplus land must be computed individually, factoring each holder’s other lands and eligibility (agriculturist status).

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Ten Together ≠ One.”

Identify: Are they just co-owners, or an AOP/BOI by law/agreement?
Ignore: Deemed-evasive partitions unless disproved via S.8(2).
Individuate: Recalculate surplus per person, check agriculturist status.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether ten co-purchasers are one “person” (AOP/BOI) under the Ceiling Act; effect of deemed partition; role of non-agriculturist status.

Rule

Inclusive definition of “person”; co-ownership ≠ AOP/BOI absent deeming clause/intent; Section 8 deeming about partitions; S.8(2) rebuttal route.

Application

No joint venture shown; partition deemed evasive; surplus and invalid transfers to be tested and recomputed individually.

Conclusion

Ten buyers are ten persons; partition ignored; remand to Mamlatdar for status checks and fresh surplus computation.

Glossary

AOP/BOI: Association of Persons/Body of Individuals — people joined for a common purpose like profit or a joint venture.
Deemed Partition (S.8): A legal presumption that a partition near an amendment was to defeat the law unless rebutted by application.
Mamlatdar: Revenue officer who examines land holdings and surplus under the Ceiling Act.
Surplus Land: Land held beyond the statutory ceiling; liable to vest in the State.