Singh Vs. Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh
& Ors  INSC 233 (17 August 1990)
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Kania, M.H.
1991 AIR 433 1990 SCR (3) 797 1990 SCC Supl. 272 JT 1990 (3) 561 1990 SCALE
Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968: Rule 7(a)--Grant of nautor land to a resident
having income of more than Rs.2,000 per annum--Validity of.
(a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 makes every
resident of the estate having less than ten bighas of land or having an income
of less than Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including lands, eligi- ble
for grant of land in nautor.
grant of nautor land to the appellant-teacher was set aside by the Financial
Commissioner in revision. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine.
appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant that the word 'or'
occurring in-between the first and the second part of cl. (a) of Rule 7 has to
be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be read as 'and' that the two parts
of the clause were, therefore, independent of each other and had to be read
disjunctively, and that he being eligible under the first part, even though
having an income of more than Rs.2,000 per annum as a teacher, the second part
of cl. (a) was not attracted.
the appeal, the Court,
1. A person who has got less than 10 bighas of land but has an income of more
than Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including the said land is not eligible
for allotment of nautor land under cl. (a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor
Land Rules, 1968. [800G]
object of granting nautor land under the Rules is to help poor and unprovided
for residents of the State.
the nature, scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is
necessary to read the word 'or' in-between the first and the second part of
clause (a) as 'and'. The two parts cannot, therefore, be read disjunctive- ly.
The second part makes it clear that an income of less than Rs.2,000 per annum
should be from all sources including lands. [800H; 801A] 798
appellant's income in the instant case being more than Rs.2,000 per annum he
was not entitled to the grant of nautor land. [801A]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 1981.
the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1981 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in
C.W.P. No. 94 of 1981.
for the Appellant.
for the Respondents.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. "Nautor land"
under Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (hereinafter
called 'Rules') means the right to utilize with the sanction of the competent
authority, waste land owned by the Government outside the towns, outside the reserved
and demarcated protected forests, and outside such other areas as may be
notified from time to time by the State Government.
Singh applied for the grant of nautor land measuring 14 bighas 12 biswas
situated in village Kanal for cultivation. The Revenue Assistant Chopal vide
his order dated June 29, 1972 sanctioned nautor land measuring 11 bighas 1 biswas
situated in village Kanal to him on payment of Rs.552.50 as Nazarana. The
Forest Department filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy
Commissioner Simla which was accepted and the order of the Revenue As- sistant Chopal
sanctioning nautor land in favour of Gopinder Singh was set aside.
Singh filed further appeal to Divisional Com- missioner, Himachal Pradesh at Simla
who accepted the same and vide his order dated September 9, 1974 restored the grant of nautor land to Gopinder Singh. The Forest Depart- ment filed revision
petition before the Financial Commis- sioner (Revenue Appeals) Himachal Pradesh
who accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated September 9, 1974 of the Divisional Commissioner
sanctioning nautor land to Gopinder Singh. He further ordered that the amount
of Nazarana Should. be refunded to Gopinder Singh and the land resumed to the
State. The Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal on the following two
(1) Gopinder Singh felled the trees on the land without waiting for necessary
approval of the Divisional Forest Officer and as such he took the law in his
Being a teacher in a Government school drawing month- ly emoluments of more
than Rs.650 p.m. his economic condi- tion was reasonably good and as such he
was not eligible for the grant of nautor land under the Rules.
the order of the Financial Commissioner Gopinder Singh filed Civil Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Simla which was dismissed in limine on July 28, 1981. This appeal by special leave is by
appellant-Gopinder Singh against the orders of the Financial Commissioner and
of the High Court.
of the Rules lays down the categories of persons eligible for the grant of nautor
land. The said rule is as under:
for nautor land.--Save for the widow and the children of a member of an armed
force or semi-armed force, who has laid down his life for the country (whose
widow and children will be eligible for grant anywhere within the Tehsil
subject to the conditions mentioned in the Wajib-ul- arj in respect of the
areas where the land applied for is situated) no one who is not the resident in
the estate in which the land applied for is situate, shall be eligible for the
grant. Every resident of the estate in which the land applied for lies will be
eligible in the following order of preference:
Such persons who have less than ten bighas of land, whether as owners, or as
tenants, or as lessees, either individually or collectively, or have an income
of less than Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including lands. Provid- ed
that in this category a dependent of one who has laid down his life for the defence
of the country shall get preference over his counterparts;
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applicants;
The dependants of those who have laid down their lives for the defence of the
country. Service for the defence of 800 the country will mean service in a
uniformed force as well as in the capacity of civilian, so long as the death
occurs on a front, be it military or civil;
Serving personnel in the armed forces and Ex-servicemen;
that a bona fide landless resident of Spite shall be eligible for the grant of
land in Nautor within the spiti Sub Division." The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has relied on first part of clause (a) of Rule 7 to
show that the appellant was having less than 10 bighas of land and as such as
was eligible for the grant of nautor land. He fur- ther contended that even
though he may be having an income of more than Rs.2,000 per annum as a teacher,
he being eligible under the first part, the second part of clause (a) of Rule 7
is not attracted in his case. According to him first and the second part of
clause (a) of Rule 7 are inde- pendent to each other and there being 'or' in
between the two parts these have to be read disjunctively. He contends that
'or' has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be read as 'and'.
have carefully examined the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 7 reproduced
above. The clause reads "such persons who have less than 10 bighas of land
... or have an income of less than 2,000 per annum from all sources including
lands." There is thus inherent evidence in the clause itself to show that
the two parts cannot be read disjunctively. The second part makes it clear that
an income of less than Rs.2,000 per annum should be from all sources including
lands. It is thus obvious that a person who has got less than 10 bighas of land
but has an income of more than Rs.2,000 from the said land, is not eligible for
allotment of nautor land under clause (a). Even otherwise if we inter- pret the
clause the way learned counsel for the appellant wants us to do it would
produce absurd result. A person have two bighas of land but otherwise earning
Rs.20,000 per annum would be eligible for allotment of nautor land if we accept
the appellant's interpretation. The object of granting nautor land under the
rules is to help poor and unprovided for residents of Himachal Pradesh.
Considering the nature, scope and the clear intention of the framers of the
Rules it is 801 necessary to read the word "or" in between the first
and the second part of clause (a) as "and". The appellant's income
was admittedly more than Rs.2,000 per annum and as such his claim for nautor
land was rightly rejected.
therefore, do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dis- missed.