PETITIONER:
INAYAT ALI KHAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U. P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1971
BENCH:
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
MITTER, G.K.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
RAY, A.N.
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION:
1971 AIR 1407 1971 SCR 716
ACT
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act 1 of 1961), s. 6(vii)-Exemption from ceiling-Horsebreeding farm whether exempt as a specialised farm-Word ’and’ in clause whether can be read as equivalent to ’or’.
HEADNOTE
The appellant was a horse-breeder. On receipt of a notice under s. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 he claimed exemption under s. 6(vii) of the Act on the ground that his farm was a specialised farm within the meaning of that sub-clause. The prescribed authority under the Act, the appellate court and the High Court in revision held against the appellant. In appeal by special leave, HELD:The sub-clause specially mentions two types of specialised farms, namely, those devoted to poultry-farming and dairying. As regards others it leaves them to be prescribed by rules under s. 44 of the Act. In this context it is impossible to read the word ’and’ as ’or’. Rule 4(4) prescribes those specialised farms, but farms used for horse-breeding are not included. The appeal must therefore fail. [718F]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2018, 2019 and 2020 of 1968. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated March 25, 1968 and March 20, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 528, 576 and 518 of 1967. S.C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the appellants (in all the appeals). S.C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana, for respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C. J,-These appeals by special leave raise a common question as to the interpretation of Section 6, Clause (xvii) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act 1 of 1961)-hereinafter referred to as the Act-and can conveniently be disposed of together. In Writ Petition 261 of 1968 the vires of this provision is challenged. This Writ Petition was heard alongwith these civil appeals and will be disposed of by a separate judgment. In order to appreciate the point a few relevant facts in the case of Civil Appeal No 2018 of 1968 may be given. On receipt
717 of a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act the appellant, Inayat Ali Khan, filed objections. He is a horse-breeder. One objection was that he has a specialised farm and certain plots were being used for growing grass or for growing special types of crops which were used as fodder for horses. He relied on Section 6 (xvii) of the Act, which reads as follows :
"6. Exemption of certain land from imposition
of ceiling :
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, land falling in any of the categories
mentioned below, shall not be taken into
consideration for the purposes of determining
the ceiling area applicable to, and the sur-
plus land of, a tenure-holder-
(xvii)land, other than land used for
purely agricultural purposes, included in
specialized farm and exclusively devoted to
poultry farming or dairying or other such
purposes, as may be prescribed:
Explanation.-Land for the purposes of this
clause shall include land, exclusively used by
the tenure-holder for growing of fodder for
purposes of his dairy."
A rule was framed exempting certain farms, and
it reads as lows :
"4(4). The following land, included in
specialised farms and exclusively devoted for
purpose of sericulture, ericulture, lacculture
or pisciculture shall, to the extent mentioned
below, be exempt under clause (xviii) of Sec-
tion 6 :
(i)land under actual plantation of
mulberry, castor and lac-host trees-Kusum,
Khair, Palse and ber-which constitute a grove,
(ii)land on which buildings, necessary for
the rearing of worms or insects producing
silk, andi or lac, as the case may be, and for
preparation of raw silk, andi and lac, are
situate, and
(iii)land, not less than one acre in area,
which is covered with water throughout the
year and has been used for pisciculture for a
continuous period of three years, duly
certified as such by an officer of the
Fisheries Department, not below the rank of an
Inspector :
Provided that the land to be exempted under
items (i) and (ii) above is justifiable with
reference to
718
the production of raw silk, andi or lac during
a, series of years. not exceeding three." The Prescribed Authority, Tahsil Sadar, held that the exemption claimed was not sustainable. The Additional District Judge, on appeal, concurred. He observed:
"The word ’and’ in clause (xvii) of section 6
makes it clear that for purposes of exemption
it is necessary that the land should be used
for specialised farm and should be exclusively
devoted to growing such articles or for such
purposes as are specified in clause (xvii) and
in Rule 4. It cannot, therefore, be said that
because this land is being used for growing a
particular type of crop it will come under the
definition of specialised farming. In the
explanation, appended to clause (xvii), a case
of growing fodder has been referred to. This
explanation says that the land used for
growing fodder purposes of dairy will be
exempted. This explanation will, therefore,
make it clear that the land used for growing
fodder for other purposes will not come under
the definition of specialised farming". The appellant filed a revision before the High Court. S. N. Singh, J., held that the lower appellate court had correctly interpreted the section. The appellant having obtained special leave, the appeal is now before us for disposal. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the word ’and’ in sub-clause (xvii), should, in the context, be read as ’or’, and that all specialised farms used for nonagricultural purposes are entitled to exemption. We see no force in this contention. The sub-clause specially mentions two types of specialised farms, namely, those devoted to poultry farming and dairying. As regards others, it leaves them to be prescribed by rules under Section 44 of the Act. In this context it is impossible to read the word ’and’ as ’or’. Rule 4(4) prescribes those specialised farms, but farms used forhorse-breeding are not included. We agree with the interpretation placed by the High Court. In the result Civil Appeal No. 2018 of 1968 fails. The facts in the other two appeals are similar. These must also fail. There will be no order as to costs. G. C. Appeals dismissed. 719