IMPORTANT POINT
A statute has to be read and understood meaningfully and purposefully in the context of the object or purpose it seeks to achieve.

Headnote:East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948-Sections 42, 19 and 20-Allotment of Beshi Phirni as a result of inclusion of land within the extended phirni as a result of amended Scheme of consolidation-Respondent was right holder of land at the time of commencement of operation of consolidation-Land included in phirni (Laldora) when original Scheme of consolidation was brought into force-As per scheme he was allotted three times area of agricultural land in lieu of the field-In year 1988, respondent 4 sold a portion of his land to respondent 3-Consolidation Officer allotted equal area of land to respondent 3 in lieu of his land which was included in Laldora consequent to amendment of Scheme of consolidation-Respondent 3 claiming allotment of three times of value of his land-Appellants ceased to be bhumidars of the field from the date they got the land field No. 679, which they accepted in lieu of the land-Thereafter, respondent 4 became the owner of the land as it was allotted to him in lieu of inclusion of his land in Laldora-Whether appellants were entitled to the land only on the ground that they were original bhumidars-(No).
       Held : The appellants were original bhumidars of land bearing Khasra No. 324 in village Alipur. This land was included in Laldora. Pursuant to their application the appellants were allotted plot No. 679 in lieu of land bearing Khasra No. 324, which was accepted. Thus the appellants ceased to have any right or interest over the land No. 324 after accepting the plot No. 679 in lieu of it as stated above. It is thereafter the land bearing Khasra No. 324 was allotted to respondent No.4 in lieu of his plot No. 1244, which was included in Laldora area. (Para 6)
       The consolidation proceedings were started in village Alipur under the Act in the year 1987. The Scheme of consolidation prepared under Section 19 of the Act was confirmed under Section 20 of the Act by the Settlement Officer on 24.7.1987 in respect of the said village. The respondent No.4 was right-holder of the land in field No. 1244 of the said village. This land was included in the phirni (Laldora) when the original Scheme of consolidation came into force in the year 1987. He got the benefit of inclusion of this land in the extended Laldora and was allotted three times area of agricultural land of the pre-consolidation area comprising of three field numbers given new Killa numbers during the repartition, namely, 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22 (pre-consolidation field No. 324) each measuring 4 bighas and 9 biswas. Thereafter, he sold his land Killa No. 28/22 to respondent No.3 in the year 1988. Thus, the respondent No.4 had availed the benefit in lieu of inclusion of his land field No. 1244. The Scheme was amended on 24.7.1991, i.e., long after the respondent No.3 purchased the land Killa No. 28/22. By the amended Scheme of consolidation the Laldora was extended by inclusion of land measuring 56 bighas and 6 biswas comprised in various field numbers including No. 324. (Para 7)
       The appellants having lost their rights over the land bearing Khasra No. 324 and having got the land No. 679 in lieu of it, do not have any right or interest over the land bearing Khasra No. 324 so as to claim any benefit under the amended Scheme as bhumidars when they no more remained bhumidars on the relevant date and under Annexure P-1 the benefit is to be given to persons, who lost their lands, to compensate them. The appellants did not lose any land under the new Scheme on account of extended Laldora. The original bhumidar in relation to the land Killa No. 28/22 would be respondent No.4. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The only point that arises for determination is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of allotment of Beshi Phirni area as a result of inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the extended phirni as a result of the amended Scheme of consolidation confirmed on 12.8.1991.

2. One Dinesh Kumar, respondent No.4 in this appeal, was right-holder of land in field No. 1244 at Alipur at the time of commencement of the operation of consolidation. The said land was included in the phirni (Laldora) when the original Scheme of consolidation was brought into force in the year 1987. As per the Scheme he was allotted three times area of agricultural land in lieu of field No. 1244. The area so allotted was comprised in field Nos. 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22. Accordingly he was put in possession of the said lands during the repartition proceedings in the year 1987. Thereafter, in the year 1988 the respondent No. 4 sold his land in Killa No. 28/22 measuring 4 bighas and 9 biswas in the year 1988 to Gautam Jain, respondent No.3 herein. This Kills No. 28/22 was Khasra No. 324 earlier, i.e., pre-consolidation field number. Since respondent No.4 had already taken benefit of the inclusion of his land in Field No. 1244 in the Laldora the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 25.3.1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos. 102/19 and 102/20 to respondent No.3 in lieu of Killa No. 28/22, which was included in Laldora consequent to the amendment of the Scheme of consolidation. The respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act ), making a grievance that the Consolidation Officer had committed an error in not extending the benefit of Beshi Phirni to him by not allotting him three times of the value of his land included within the phirni as per the amended Scheme. The Consolidation Officer, in the comments offered by him to the revision petition, stated that the Beshi Phirni as a result of the inclusion of Killa No.28/22 within the extended phirni has been given to the appellants on the ground that Killa No. 28/22 actually formed the pre-consolidation Khasra No. 324, which was in their bhumidari. It was further explained that the benefit of Beshi Phirni had to be given to the previous/original bhumidars and that the respondent No.3 was not entitled to such benefit as he had purchased the land in question, which was mutated in his name much after the formation of the original Scheme. In view of the comments the appellants were impleaded as parties to the revision petition. The learned Financial Commissioner, after elaborately considering the respective contentions of the parties in the light of the material placed before him, allowed the claim of respondent No.3 by order dated 23.10.1992. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order of the Financial Commissioner filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 68 of 1993 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court by a detailed and well-considered order did not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeal No. 468 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge affirming the order of the Financial Commissioner, dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, on the basis of the amended Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act (Annexure P-1-translated version), urged that the appellants being old bhumidars were entitled for the benefit as a result of inclusion of the land Kila No. 28/22 (the original khasra No. 324), of which the appellants were bhumidars. In particular, he drew our attention to the portion in Annexure P-1 "While allotting plots the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1097

IMPORTANT POINTA statute has to be read and understood meaningfully and purposefully in the context of the object or purpose it seeks to achieve.

IMPORTANT POINT
A statute has to be read and understood meaningfully and purposefully in the context of the object or purpose it seeks to achieve.