Holding

Clause (a) of Rule 7 must be read as requiring both conditions—less than ten bighas of land **and** income less than Rs.2,000 per annum—for eligibility, rendering the appellant ineligible.

Summary

Gopinder Singh, a government teacher, applied for nautor land under Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. The Revenue Assistant initially sanctioned the grant, but the Forest Department appealed, leading to its cancellation and subsequent restoration by the Divisional Commissioner, which was later set aside by the Financial Commissioner on grounds of illegal felling of trees and the appellant's relatively high income. Singh challenged the decision, arguing that the "or" in clause (a) of Rule 7 should be given its ordinary, disjunctive meaning, making his small landholding sufficient for eligibility despite his income exceeding Rs.2,000 per annum. The Supreme Court examined the wording of the rule and held that the two parts of the clause must be read together, effectively treating "or" as "and" to ensure only the poor receive nautor land. Consequently, because Singh's income was above the Rs.2,000 threshold, he was ineligible and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The proper interpretation of the word "or" in clause (a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968—whether it is disjunctive or conjunctive.
Whether a person possessing less than ten bighas of land but earning more than Rs.2,000 per annum qualifies for a grant of nautor land.
Whether the appellant, a government teacher with an income exceeding Rs.2,000 per annum, is eligible for nautor land under the Rules.

Subjects

Nautor landeligibility criteriainterpretation of statutory languageHimachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968income thresholdland grantadministrative law

Judgment

GOPINDER SINGH
A
v.
FOREST DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.
,.,._
AUGUST 17, 1990

[M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, n:J B

Himachal 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
-- _,,
Clause (a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules,
1968 makes every resident of the estate having less than ten bighas of
c
land or having an income of less than Rs.2,000 per annum from all
sources including lands, eligible for grant ofland in nautor.

-~ _ The grant of nautor land to the appellant-teacher was set aside by
the Financial Commissioner in revision. The High Court dismissed the D
writ petition in limine.

In the 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 cluase were, therefore, indepen- E
., dent 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.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court, F

HELD: I. A person who has got less than IO bighas ofland but has
~an income of m9re 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]
G
2. The object of granting nautor land under the Rules is to help
poor and unprovided for residents of the State. Considering 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
.lia) as 'and'. The two parts cannot, therefore, be read disjunctively. The
second part makes it clear that an income of less than Rs.2,000 per H
annum should be from all sources including lands. [800H; 80IA]
797
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] .3 S.C.R.

3. The appellant's income in the instant case. being more than
A
Rs.2,000 per annum he was not entitled to the grant of nautor land. [SOJA]~

CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006
of 1981.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1981 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 94of 1981.

M.V. Goswami for the Appellant.

Nemo for the Respondents.
c The 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
D 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 tinie to time by the State Government.

Gopinder Singh applied for the grant of nautor land measuring
14 bighas 12 biswas situated in vmage Kanai for cultivation. The
E Revenue Assistant Chopal vide his order dated June 29, 1972 sane- ',
tioned nautor land measuring 1l bighas 1 biswas situated in village
Kanai 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
Assistant Chopal sanctioning nautor land in favour of Gopinder Singh •
F was set aside.
J
· Gopinder Singh filed further appeal to Divisional Commissioner,
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 Department filed revision petition be~ore the Finan-
G cial Commissiner (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- furthe_r ordered that -the amount of Nazarana should_ be
refunded to Gopinder Singh and the land resumed to the State. The
1
Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal on the following two
_H grounds:
GOPINDER v. FOREST DEPTT. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 799

(1) Gopinder Singh felled the trees on the land without waiting
A
for necessary approval of the Divisional Forest Officer and
as such he took the law in his own hands.

(2) Being a teacher in a Government school drawing monthly
emoluments of more than Rs.650 p.m. his economic condi-
tion was reasonably good and as such he was not eligible for B
the grant of nautor land under the Rules.

_ - ~'-Against 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 dismis-
sed in limine ·on July 28, 1981. This appeal by special leave is by
appellant-Gopinder Singh against the orders of the Financial Commis-
c
sioner and of the High Court.

----~ - Rule 7 of the Rules lays down the categories of persons eligible
for the grant of nautor land. The said rule is as under:
D
"Eligibility 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 g1ant anywhere
within the Tehsil subject to the conditions mentioned in the
Wajib-ul-arj in respect of the areas where the land applied E
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:
F
(a) Such persons who have less than ten bighas of land,
whether as owners, or as tenants, or as lessees, either indi-
vidually or collectively, or have an income of less than
Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including lands.
Provided that in this category a dependent of one who has
laid down his life for the defence of the country shall get G
preference over his counterparts;

(b) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applicants;

(c) The dependants of those who have laid down their 1.ives
for the defence of the country. Service for the defence .of H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

the country will mean service in a uniformed force as well as
A in the capcity of civilian, so long as the death occurs on ar
front, be it military or civil; ...._

(d) Serving personnel in the armed forces and Ex-servicemen;

B (e) Panchayats, and

(f) others;
_;-!
Provided that a bonafide landless resident of Spiti shall be
eligible for the grant of land in Nautor within the spiti Sub
Division."
c
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 further contended that even though he may be having
O 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 independent to each other and there being 'or'
in between the two parts these have to be read disjunctively. He con-
tends that 'or' has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be
E read as 'and'. '·

We have carefully examined the provisions of clause (a) of Rule
7 reproduced above. The clause reads "such persons who have less
than JO bighas of land ... or have an income of less than 2,000 per
annum from all sources including lands." There is thus inherent evi- · •
F dence 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 Ian< 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
G interpret 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 allot-
ment of nautor land if we accept the appellant's interpretation. The
object of granting nautor land under the rules is to help poor and l.
unprovided for residents of Himachal Pradesh. Considering the
H nature, scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is
GOPINDER v. FOREST DEPTT. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 801

necessary to read the word "or" in betw_een the first and the second part A
, k 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.

We, therefore, do not agree with the conteil.tions raised by the
B
learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
with no order as to costs.

-~-:._- P.S.S. Appeal dismissed .

• ,