KALLU ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                          KALLU ETC.
                                                                               A
                               v.
                     STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                          OCTOBER 24, 1989

 [S. NATARAJAN, K.N. SAIKIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.)                             B

      U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960: Section
4A-'Jrrigated land'-Determination of-Whether two crops should
be grown on entire extent of land holding.

      The appellants had filed separate writ petitions in the High Court
challenging the basis for determination of 'irrigated land' under section      c
4A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 1n
view of conflicting interpretations given earlier by Single Judges of that
High Court, a reference was made to the Division Bench in the case of
the petitioner/appellant Kalin. Following the ratio laid down by the
Division Bench in Kallu v. State of U.P., [1979) A.L.J. 1113 the writ          D
petitions were dismissed.

       Before this Court, the appellants disputed the correctness of the
view taken by the Division Bench, and contended that in order to clas-
sify a land as irrigated land, there should be evidence of 'assured irriga-
tion' and, secondly, that the two crops in a Fasli year should have been       E
raised on the entire extent of the land and not in a portion of land alone.

      Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

      HELD: (1) The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 is a piece of social legislation for achieving the          F
several objectives set out in the preamble. In order to give greater
thrust to the objects underlying the Act, the Legislature has changed
the basis for reckoning the ceiling area from that of 'fair quality land' to
that of 'assured irrigation facilities' available to a land. !S74C-DI

      (2) On a reading of section 4A, it may be seen that the Legislature      G
has· prescribed different kinds of tests on the basis of which the
authorities have to determine whether a land is irrigated or not for the
purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder. The two
broad tests are (1) availability of irrigation facilities and (2) the factum
of raising or the capability of the soil raiSing at least two crops in an
agricultural year. l573F-G]                                                    H

                                    567
    568          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    I1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
           (3) There is no merit in the contention that in addition to the
A
    materials and records set out in the section there must be independent
    evidence of assured irrigation facility before ever a Prescribed Autho-
    rity can form an opinion about a land having assured irrigation facility. [574F]

           (4) Sub-clause (b) of section 4-A cannot be read so as to mean that
B   two crops should have been grown on the entire extent of a land having
    irrigation facility for classifying the land as 'irrigated land' as it would        ,
    have the effect of limiting the operation of the sub-clause contrary to the
    legislative intent. [57SA]

           (S) The classification has to be made with reference to the poten-
    tiality of the land to yield two crops in one Fasli year and not on the
c   basis of the actual raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land. [574H]

          (6) The raising of two crops even on a portion of the land will
    prove in the absence of material to show poor quality of soil in portions
    of the land due to salinity etc. the uniform nature and content of the soil
D   of the entire land. [57SD]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3241
    of 1979 etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 24. 7 .1979 of the Allahabad
E   High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11370 of 1975.

          M.V. Goswami and Dr. B.S. Chauhan for the Appellant.

         Prithvi Raj, R.S. Rana and Ashok K. Srivastava for the
    Respondents.
F
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          NATARAJAN, J. In these appeals by special leave, the appel-
    lants assail the interpretation given to certain provisions of Section 4A
    of the U .P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as
G   amended by U .P. Acts 18 of 1973 and 20 of 1976 (hereinafter referred
    to as the Act) by the Allahabad Higb Court. Conflicting interpreta-                 -
    tions had been given by single judges on the relevant provisions and
    hence a reference was made in Kallu v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1979]
    A.L. ]. 1113 to which connected writ petitions were tagged on to a
    Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on two questions
H   viz.
                   KALLU v. STATE OF U.P. [NATARAJAN, J.]                 569

                "1. What is the true scope and effect of sub-clause (b) of
                                                                                 A
                clause 'firstly' of Section 4-A?

                2. In particular, whether the said sub-clause would take in
                the entire plot only if two crops were grown in every inch of
                the land covered by it."
                                                                                 B
     The Division Bench, in its reported judgment Kallu v. State of V.P.,
     [1979] A.L.J. 1113 has discussed the matter and answered the two
     questions as under:
'I
                "Clause 'firstly' of Section 4-A requires the Prescribed
                Authority to form an opinion as to whether, during the
                material Fasli years, irrigation facilities were available       c
                from such sources as are enumerated therein in respect of
                any crop. The relevant consideration is merely the exis-
                tence of irrigation facilities and not its actual utilisation.
                This is understandably so because if facilities are available
                and yet a tenure holder neglects to make use of them there D
                is no justifiable reasons why he should have an advantage
                over those who have been up and doing while he has
                chosen to be idle and asleep. We have already held that
                'land' and 'plot' cannot be equated. If irrigation facilities of
                the nature mentioned in sub-clause (a) of clause 'firstly' of
                Section 4-A are available only to a part of the total area of E
                which a plot is comprised it cannot be held that irrigation
                facilities were available for the entire plot. In such cases,
                the Prescribed Authority on a correct interpretation of sub-
                clause (a) of clause 'firstly' will have to treat only that area
                of a tenure holder's plot as 'irrigated land' to which irriga-
                tion facilities were available. We are consequently of the F
                opinion that if a large plot consist partly of an area to which
                irrigation facilities are available as also some to which irri-
                gation facilities are not available only that area thereof will
                be covered by sub-clause (a) of clause 'firstly' to which
                irrigation facilities were in fact available. Of course 'usar
                land' as defined in the Act and determined in the manner G
                provided by the Rules will have to be excluded even though
                irrigation facilities may have been available to it. Similarly
                other varieties of land exempted under Section 6 will have
                to be excluded from consideration.

                As far as sub-clause (b) of clause 'firstly' is concerned, the   H
    570   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

           requirement is 'that at least two crops were grown in such
A
           land in any one of the aforesaid years' (emphasis supplied).
           The expression such land, it is obvious, means land refer-
           red to in sub-clause (b) is 'in' and not 'over' and conse-
           quently if the crops were grown in any portion of the area
                                                                              •
           of a plot to which irrigation facility was available under
B          sub-clause (a) of clause 'firstly', the entire area to which
           irrigaton facility was available shall have to be treated as
           land in which two crops were grown. The requirement of
           sub-clause (b) of clause 'firstly' of Section 4-A is not that
           every inch of the land to which irrigation facilities were         r
           available in the material years should have grown dou~le
           crops. To take a hypothetical example, if to a plot of land
c          consisting of 50 acres, irrigation facilities were available to
           an area of 20 acres and on any portion of such 20 acres at
           least two crops were grown in any of the years 1378 Fasli to
           1380 Fasli, the entire area of 20 acres to which irrigation
           facilities were available will have to be treated as irrigated
D          land for the purpose of sub-clause (b) of clause 'firstly' of
           Section 4A. The word 'in' is one of common use. If it is said
           that an individual lives in a particular building or locality it
           does not convey that he is in occupation of the entire build-
           ing or locality. Similarly when it is said that one has grown
           threes .in a piece of land or raised crops therein, it does not
E          signify that he has grown trees or raised crops over the .
           entire land. When the legislature by amending the Act
           made availability of irrigation facilities the basis for
           determination of the ceiling area and surplus land instead
           of the quality of the land it must have had some purpose in
           mind. During the last decade farm-technology and agri-
F          cultural science have made rapid progress and human
           ingenuity coupled with labour and application of scientific
           know-how has succesfully converted even deserts into
           green belts provided water was available. Application of
           scientific methods has made possible improvement in soil
           quality and its fertility. It is not unreasonable to infer that
G          when the Act was amended the legislature intended that if
           any land has irrigation facilities available to it and is not
           'usar land' and in some part of it 'dofasli' crops have in fact
           been raised in any of the relevant 'fasli' years, a willing and
           hard working tenure-holder by application of modern
           agricultural appliance and fertilisers can improve the pro-
H          ductivity of the land and consequently no premium should
              KALLU v. STATE OF U.P. {NATARAJAN, J.]                  571

           be available to those who fail to do so. In this view of the
           matter, to take a concrete case to compute the area of a
                                                                         A
           tenure-holder's irrigated land' under clause 'firstly' of
           Section 4A Prescribed Authority must find out the area of
           land to which irrigation facilities of the prescribed nature
           were available for any crop during the relevant Fasli years,
           exclude therefrom 'usar land' etc., and if it finds that over B
           any part of such area at least two crops were grown it must
           hold the entire area of 'irrigated land'. Such an interpreta-
           tion resolves the problem which the Prescribed Authority
           would be faced with in determination of the 'irrigated land'
           of a tenure' holder where recods reveal the growing of the
           crops on varying areas of his holding during the material C
           Fasli Years."

                "For the reasons given, our answer to question No. 1,
           passed by the learned single judge is as follows:

                    If in any portion of an area of plot or plots to which   D
           during the Fasli Years 1378 to 1380 irrigation facilities were
           available and over any portion of such area double crop
           had in fact been sown, the entire area 'of the plot to which
           irrigation facilities were available will be covered by clause
           'firstly' of Sectio.n 4-A since both the condition laid in sub-
           clause (a) and (b) will be complied with."                        E

           "Our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative.

                   In as far as a contrary view has been taken with
            regard to the scope of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause
            'firstly' of Section 4-A of the Act in Casi Ram v. State of F
            U.P., (supra) and similar opinion expressed in Surrinjpal
            Singh v. State of U.P., [1978] A.L.J. 1343 and Sitaram
            Tyagi v. State of U.P., (Writ No. 8115 of 1975 decided on
            22nd September, 1978, 1978 AWC SCC 114 page 90 have
            not been correctly decided."
                                                                        G
      Thereafter, the writ peti.tions were placed before single, judges
for decision on merits and the petitions came to be dismissed. In Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 11370 of 1975 it was held that plot Nos. 595
and 224 belonging to the petitioner had been rightly treated as
irrigated land in their entirety for purposes of computation under the
Act. Against that judgl\lent, Civil Appeal No. 3241 of 79 has been H
                     •
    572           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

    filed. In the other appeal which arises from the dismissal of Civil Misc.
A
    Writ Petition No. Nil of 84, leave has been granted confined only to
    Plot No. 466. The writ petition was dismissed following the ratio in
    Kallu v. State of U.P., (supra). Though the appeals are directed
    against the dismissal of the two writ petitions, the real challenge in the•
    appeals is to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Kallu v. State
B   of U.P., (supra).

          The appellants dispute the correctness of the view taken by the
    Division Bench and would contend that in order to classify a land as
    irrigated land, there should be evidence of 'assured irrigation' and
    secondly the two crops in a fasli should have been raised on the entire
    extent of the land and not in a portion of the land alone.
c
           The interpretation of the terms of Section 4-A of the Act assume
    importance because 'ceiling area' and 'surplus land' under the Act
    have to be computed on the basis of the 'irrigated land' held by a
    tenure holder. Originally, the 'ceiling area' under the Act was to be
D   determined on the basis of 'fair quality land'. However, by amend-
    ments introduced by U.P. Act 18 of 1973 and U.P. Act 20 of 1976,
    'ceiling area' and 'surplus land' are to be determined with reference to
    the assured irrigation facilities available to land held by a tenure
    holder.

E         We may now have a look at the relevant portions of Section 4-A
    of the Act. They read as under:

                      "4-A. Determination of irrigated land.-The pres-
                cribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the
                yeas 1378 Fasli, 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli, the latest village
F               map and such other records as it may consider necessary,
                and may also make local inspection where it considers
                necessary, and thereupon if the prescribed anthority is of
                opinion-

                firstly, (a) that irrigation facility was available for any land
G               in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years;
                by-

                (i) any canal included in Schedule No. 1 of irrigation rates
                notified in Notification No. 1579/W/XXIII-62-W-1946,
                dated March 31, 1953, as amended from time to time; or
               KALLU v. STATE OF U.P. [NATARAJAN, J.]                    573

            (ii) any lift irrigation canal; or
                                                                                A
            (iii) any State tube-well or a private irrigation work; and

            (b) that at least two crops were grown in such land in any
            one of the aforesaid years; or secondly, that irrigation faci-
            lity became available to any land by a State Irrigation work        B
            coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of
            the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings
            (Amendment) Act, 1972, and at least two crops were
            grown in such land in any agricultural year between the
            date of such work coming into operation and the date of
            issue of notice under Scc!ion 10; or
                                                                                c
            thirdly, (a) that any land is situated within the effective
            command area of a lift irrigation canal or a State tube-well
            or a private irrigation work; and

            (b) that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is   D
            capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural
                    \
            year;

            then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to
            be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act.
                                                                                E
                                     EXPLANATION I.               (Omitted)

                                    EXPLANATION II.               (Omitted)

                                     EXPLANATION III.             (Omitted)
                                                                                F
      On a reading of Section 4-A, it may be seen that the Legislature
has prescribed different kinds of tests on the basis of which the
authorities have to determine whether a land is irrigated land or not
for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder. The
two broad tests are ( 1) availability of irrigation facilities and (2) the
factum of raising or the capability of the soil for raising atleast two         G
crops in an agricultural year.

      We may now examine the merits of the appellant's contentions.
The statute has been enacted "to provide for the imposition of ceiling
on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh and certain other matters connected
therewith." The preamble to the Act reads as under:                             H
    574           SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

               "Whereas it is necessary in the interest of the community to
A
               ensure increased agricultural production and to provide
               land for landless agricultural labourers and for other public
               purposes as best to subserve the common good.

                And whereas a more equitable distribution of land is
B               essential.

                And, therefore, it is expedient to provide for the imposi-
                tion of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the
                aforementioned purposes."

          The Act is thus a piece of social legislation for achieving the
c   several objectives set out in the preamble. In order to give greater
    thrust to the objects underlying the Act, the Legislature has changed
    the basis for reckoning the ceiling area from that of 'fair quality land'
    to that of "assured irrigation facilities" available to a land.

D         Coming now to the specific provisions of Section 4-A dealt with
    by the High Court, it may be seen that in order to form an opinion
    whether irrigation facility was available for any land from one of the
    sources mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) in respect of any
    crop in anyone of the aforesaid years viz., Faslis 1378 to 1380, the
    Prescribed Authority is enjoined to examine the Khasras for those
E   three Fasli years, the village map, other relevant records considered
    necessary and also to make a local inspection whenever it is necessary.
    Hence there is no scope for contending that a Prescribed Authority
    may form his opinion without reference to relevant material, in an
    arbitrary or capricious manner, to the detriment of a tenure holder as
    regards the availability of assured irrigation facility to a land from one
F   of the enumerated sources. Consequently, there is no merit in the first
    contention of the appellant that in addition to the materials and
    records set out in the sub-caluse, there must be independent evidence
    of assured irrigation facility before ever a Prescribed Authority can
    form an opinion about a land having assured irrigation facility,.

G         As regards the second contention relating to sub-clause (b ), the
    clause refers only to the growing of atleast two crops in a land found to
    be having assured irrigation facility in any one of the r_elevant years.
    The sub-clause does not contemplate the raising of two crops on the
    entire extent of the land. The classification has to be made with refe-
    rence to the potentiality of the land to yield two crops in one Fasli year
H   and not on the basis of the actual raising of two crops on the entire
                 KALLU v. STATE OF U.P. [NATARAJAN, J.]                  57)

 extent of the land. Therefore, sub-clause (b) cannot be read so as to          A
 mean that two crops should have· been grown on the entire extent of a
 land having irrigation facility for classifying the land as 'irrigated land'
  as it would have the effect of limiting the operation of the sub-clause
 contrary to the legislative intent. The High Court has taken the view
 that when the Legislature made amendments to the Act, it must have
 :had in mind the advancement that has been made in agricultural                B
  science and farm technology and by reason of it a tenure holder can
 overcome hurdles and·raise two crops in a year over the entire extent
 of a land having irrigation facility. We need not go as far as that. The
 normal presumption, in the absence of contra-material; would be that
 the quality and content of soil of a land would be uniform throughout
 its extent. Such being the case, if a tenure holder is able to raise two       C
 crops in a year in a portion of the land, then it would be logical to hold
 that the other portions of the land also would have the capacity to yield
 two crops if the tenure holder had utilised the entire extent tci raise two
 crops instead of utilising a portion of the land alone. The raising of two
 .crops even on a portion of the land will prove, in the absence of
 material to show poor quality of soil ln portions of the land due to           D
 salinity etc., the uniform nature and content of the soil of the entire
 land. The High Court was therefore right in holding that the Pres-
 :cribed Authority can treat a land, having assured irrigation facility, as
  'irrigated land' if the tenure holder had raised two crops even in a
 portion of the land during anyone of the prescribed years and that it is
 not necessary that the raising of the two crop~ shouW have been made           E
 on the entire extent of the land in order to classify the land as 'irrigated
 land'.

         As the learned single judges have dismissed the writ petitions on
   the ground that the lands in questi~ satisfy the tests laid down by the
  Division Bench in Kallu v. State of U.P., (supra), we do not find any         F
  .tnerit in these appeals. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed
r but there will be no order asto costs. ·


 R.S.. S.                                               Appeals dismissed.