Back
Allahbad High Court
G.C.MATHUR
Durga Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12/09/1968
AGRICULTURAL AREA - U. P. URBAN AREAS ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1956 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - INTERPRETATION - LEASE FOR BUILDING PURPOSES - CULTIVATION - INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a zamindar, challenged the demarcation of two plots of land as agricultural area under the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (the Act). The plots were leased for building purposes, but buildings had been constructed on them. The Demarcation Officer and the Board of Revenue held that the plots were agricultural area, even though buildings stood on them, based on Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 2(1)(d) of the Act should be interpreted to include only areas that are being used for cultivation by the lessee or sub-lessee. The court found that the intention of the Legislature was to keep all parti and built-up areas outside the scope of the Act and to confine its operation to agricultural areas alone.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 2(1)(d) of the Act includes areas that are covered by buildings or are parti? 2. Whether the court can read or add words to a statute to give effect to the intention of the Legislature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(1)(d) of the Act in light of the long title, preamble, and history of the legislation. The court found that the Legislature intended to abolish the rights of intermediaries in agricultural areas, not in built-up or parti areas. 2. The court held that it is permissible to read or add words to a statute to give effect to the intention of the Legislature, but only when it is necessary to do so to give the language sense and meaning in its context.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, holding that the plots in question were not agricultural area and could not be demarcated as such.
2. After the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force, a notification was published by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act for demarcating the agricultural area in district Saharanpur. In the original proposals issued by the Commissioner, these two plots were not included in the agricultural area. Respondents Hari Ram and Gopal Das, thereupon, filed objections under S. 4 (3) of the Act before the Demarcation Officer that these two plots should also be included in the agricultural area. The Demarcation Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner. By order dated January 10, 1966, the Additional Commissioner held that the plots, even though buildings stood thereon, were agricultural area as contemplated by Sec. 2 (i) (d) of the Act and directed that they so demarcated. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. It was urged by the petitioner that, under Section 2 (1) (d), an area would be agricultural area only if buildings had not been erected on it. The Board did not accept this contention and, on September 19, 1966, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner now challenges these two orders.
3. The case has been ably argued by Shri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and he has also collected much useful material and placed it before the Court. In order to appreciate the arguments, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2 is the definition section and sub-section (1) thereof, which defines "agricultural area", is in these words :-
"2(1) 'Agricultural area' as respects any urban area means an area which, with reference to such date as the State Government may notify in that behalf, is-
(a) in the possession of or held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove;
(b) held as a grove by or in the personal cultivation of a permanent lessee in Avadh; or
(c) included in the holding of-
(i) a fixed-rate tenant,
(ii) an ex-proprietary tenant,
(iii) an occupancy tenant,
(iv) a tenant holding on special terms in Avadh,
(v) a rent-free grantee,
(vi) a grantee at a favourable rate of rent,
(vii) a hereditary tenant,
(viii) a grove-holder,
(ix) a sub-tenant referred to in subsection (4) of S. 47 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939; or
(x) a non-occupancy tenant of land other than land referred to in sub-s. (3) of Section 30 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and is used by the holder thereof for purposes of agriculture or horticulture:
Provided always that land which on the date aforesaid is occupied by buildings not being 'improvements' as defined in S. 3 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and land appurtenant to such buildings shall not be deemed to be agricultural area.
(d) held on lease duly executed before the first day of July, 1955, for the purposes of erecting buildings thereon; or
(e) held or occupies by an occupier.
"Explanation- An area, being part of the holding of a tenant, shall not be deemed to have ceased to be agricultural area by reason merely that it has not been used, during the seven years preceding the commencement of this Act, for raising crops or other agricultural produce".
Section 3 provides that the State Go
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
