Inayat Ali Khan Vs. State of U. P
 INSC 149 (6 May 1971)
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER,
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION: 1971 AIR 1407 1971 SCR 716
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'.
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]
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 surplus 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
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 Section 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, 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 pisci culture
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 for horse-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.