Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1307 (RAJ)

Sudarshan Mineral Co. v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-18

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura, Bhilwara, aggrieved by the order of learned Board of Revenue Annexure-6 dated 29.8.1997, whereby the learned Board of Revenue rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner and held that the assessment of surplus land under the Old Ceiling Law (Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) under Chapter-Ill (B) even in the second round of litigation after remand by the Board of Revenue earlier vide order dated 23.12.1977 (Annexure-3), was justified. 3. Mr. Manish Shishodia and Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Old Ceiling Law, as per definition given under Section 30-B of the Law of Ceiling of Agricultural Holding in Rajasthan enacted as Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1960, the definition of "person" as defined under Section 30B(b) of the said Act did not include any body- corporate or even the partnership firm and, therefore, the assessment under the said Old Ceiling Law in the present case was not justified; and the Revenue Courts below have erred in upholding such assessment under the Old Ceiling Law by the impugned orders. They further submitted that the present has a chequered history of two rounds of litigation and initially vide order (Annexure-1) dated 29.6.1972, the learned S.D.O., Shahpura, District, Bhilwara in Case No. 156/1971 State of Rajasthan v. Shree Sudarshan Mineral Company , Shahpura, passed the assessment under the Old Ceiling Law, against which, the Appeal No. 152/1975 came to dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on 19.5.1975. Upon a revision petition filed by the assessee being Revision No. 334 Rev./Ceiling/75/Bhilwara, came to be allowed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide order dated 23.12.1977 and the matter was remanded back to the learned S.D.O., Shahpura, with the following directions : "5. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. In view of the legal provision as embodied in Rule 17(3) of the Old Ceiling law the Court should have clubbed the share of the land which was held in the Company, with the separate land of that person while assessing the ceiling limit. Here in this case the Revenue Appellate Authority has the ceiling limit. In view of the legal provision as embodied in Rule 17(3) of the Old Ceiling law the Court should have clubbed the share of the land which was held in the Company, with the separate land of that person while assessing the ceiling limit. Here in this case the Revenue Appellate Authority has the ceiling limit. Here in this case, the Revenue Appellate Authority has stated that there are about four persons who held share in this Company, who were assessed independently under the old ceiling law and the land which was found more than 30 standard acres in each case was ordered to be resumed. For the rest of the share-holders, the Court has simply stated that they belonged to the same family and therefore, there was no necessity of looking individually in the case of all share-holders. It is true that those who have already been assessed independently, the share of land of such persons in the Company should be resumed. But there should have been a clear finding by the lower Courts that the other share-holders were also assessed independently or their land was clubbed like that of others according to law. In the absence of such a finding it cannot be held that the whole land can be acquired. Therefore, only to this extent the revision is accepted and the case is remanded to the trial Court with the observations that it should find out that all share-holders were separately assessed or not; and if they were assessed, whether the land which was held by each one of them in this Company was accounted for in their individuals assessments. If it was not accounted for them it should be so accounted for in their accounts and then whatever the excess lands they should be resumed. The Company itself cannot be assessed independently. 6. Pronounced in open court. Sd/- (B.N. Malthan) Chairman." 4. Despite the aforesaid remand, the learned S.D.O., Shahpura, reiterated his previous order on 30.12.1993 vice order (Annexure-4) and assessed the assessee company Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura, and found that 96 standard acres was excess or surplus land with the said assessee, Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura. Even, the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority came to be dismissed again on 15.6.1994 and revision against such order of learned R.A.A., also came to be dismissed by the impugned order Annexure-6 dated 29.8.1997. Even, the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority came to be dismissed again on 15.6.1994 and revision against such order of learned R.A.A., also came to be dismissed by the impugned order Annexure-6 dated 29.8.1997. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 5. Mr. Manish Shishodia, submitted that actually a limited company knows as 'Sudarshan Mineral Company Ltd. Bhilwara was incorporated vide Incorporation No. 18/19\55-56 on 1.2.1956 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, in which the various partners of erstwhile partnership firm 'M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura', contributed their respective land holdings, against which they were given shares in the said limited company and the land belonging to erstwhile partnership firm 'M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura', which was assessed under the Old Ceiling Law in the present case, also sold its assets to the said incorporated limited company i.e. M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company Ltd.. Bhilwara on 8.10.1957 including the agricultural lands as noticed in Para 12 of the impugned order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 29.8.1997. He, therefore, submitted that the land in question belonging to the limited Company, could not be again assessed under the Old Ceiling Law since the limited Company being a juristic person under the Old Ceiling Law, does not fall within the definition of "person" under Section 30-B(b) of the Act. The definition of "family" and "person" given in Section 30-B of the said Act are quoted hereunder for ready reference : "30B. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter- (a) "family" shall mean a family consisting of a husband and wife, their children and grand-children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent, and (b) "person" in the case of an individual, shall include the family of such individual". 6. Mr. Shishodia, further argued that later on under the new ceiling law, known as "The Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973', of course, the definition was revised and even the juristic person like a Ltd. company was included with the definition of person. 6. Mr. Shishodia, further argued that later on under the new ceiling law, known as "The Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973', of course, the definition was revised and even the juristic person like a Ltd. company was included with the definition of person. The comparative definition under the new Ceiling Act, 1973 is quoted hereunder for ready reference : '2(J) "Person" includes any trust, company, firm or association or body of Individuals, whether incorporated or not." He, therefore, urged that the assessment proceedings initiated under the name of erstwhile partnership firm M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura, possibly the name of partnership firm ending with the word "company" has given rise to some confusion in the mind of the revenue Courts below, and such partnership firm also could not be assessed under the Old Ceiling Law, since the agricultural land in question stood vested with the limited company after its formation on 1.2.1956 either in the form of consideration for shares acquired by various share-holders of the Company, who were partners of the erstwhile firm, the assessee M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company, Shahpura (partnership firm) or by a sale of such landholdings by the said partnership firm to the said limited company on 8.12.1957 as noticed in Para 12 of the impugned order. In any case, the partnership firm as an assessee or the limited company as a juristic person, as defined in Section 30B(b) of Old Ceiling Law could not be so assessed under the said law, and since the partners in their individual capacity, had already been assessed under the Old Ceiling Law and surplus in their respective hands, if any, stood surrendered to the State Government, therefore, there was no question of initiating fresh ceiling proceedings against the said partnership firm or the limited company after it came into existence way back in the year 1956; and such initiation of the proceedings was done in the first instance as late as in the year 1971 vide Case No. 156/1971 by the learned S.D.O., Shahpura, District; Bhilwara vide order Annexure-1. 7. 7. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained or in the alternative at least the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara to pass fresh assessment under the Old Ceiling Law only after taking into account the aforesaid facts of assessment under the Old Ceiling Law already made in the hands of the partners of erstwhile firm M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company (partnership firm), Shahpura, and thereafter considering the question whether the assessment proceedings against the assessee/partnership firm or the limited Company at all could be undertaken in view of restricted definition of "person" as contained in Section 30B(b) of the Old Ceiling Law. 8. Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned Govt. Counsel, however, supported the impugned order and urged that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the opinion that on account of wrong perception of the Revenue Courts be ow and not arriving at clear finding of fact before hand as to how agricultural land in question possessed by erstwhile firm M/s. Sudarshan Mineral Company (partnership firm), Shahpura, was liable to be assessed under the Old Ceiling Law or not, once the individual partners of the said firm already so assessed under the Old Ceiling Law itself and surplus lands in their respective hands was already surrendered to the State Government, the impugned orders have been passed in two rounds of litigation. 10. The definition of 'person' under Section 30B(b) of the Old Ceiling Law, was also required to be taken note of because prima facie, as such, the proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law could not be initiated against a partnership firm much less against the limited Company under the Old Ceiling Law. The position of law under the new ceiling law of 1973 Act, is of course, different when the body corporate or association of body of individuals whether incorporated or not, was also included within the definition of 'person" under Section 2(j) of the 1973 Act. In the absence of such findings arrived at by the Revenue Courts below, the assessment under the share holders of the limited company or even erstwhile partnership firm as such taking note of the assessment of partners in their individual hands, cannot be sustained. In the absence of such findings arrived at by the Revenue Courts below, the assessment under the share holders of the limited company or even erstwhile partnership firm as such taking note of the assessment of partners in their individual hands, cannot be sustained. It is well that partnership firm is not a juristic person or a person independent from its partners, who are individuals, whereas the limited company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act, 1956, has a separate and independent character and limited Company is a juristic person in its own capacity and by the force of Section 13 of the Companies Act, 1956, a limited company has to suffix the word 'private limited' or 'limited' after its name. 11. In the present case, the learned Board of Revenue and the lower Revenue Courts, appear to have proceeded under a misconception in law and, therefore, these orders are required to be set aside with a direction to the Revenue Courts below of S.D.O., Shahpura, Bhilwara, to undertake such proceedings again and only after the clear findings about the previous assessment in the hands of partners, vesting of land in partnership firm and later on in the limited company and deciding the question of assesseability of partnership firm or limited company under the Old Ceiling Law, are arrived at that such proceedings can be taken to its logical end. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and all the impugned orders of the Revenue Courts below passed in two rounds of litigations, are set aside and the matter is restored back to the learned S.D.O, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner again and pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after deciding all the objections by reasoned order as aforesaid within a period of one year from today. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Revenue Courts below forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******