RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

A                RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN AND ORS. ETC.
                                         v.
                           STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 24, 1996

B             (M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)

          U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 :

          S.6(1) clause(f}--Exemption of ce1tain land from the imposition of
C ceiling-Wakf Alai Au/ad-Not entitled to any differential Treatment than
    what is due to institutions at large towards exemption of ceiling of lands in
    the hands of holders.

          Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:

D         S.19--Exemptiori--Charitable or religious Trnst-l.,and used for a11y
    public charitable or religious purposes-Need to establish the same-Since in
    the instant cases matter is remitted by High Court to the first appellate
    authority, that authority to detenni11e all the questions left to it.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5311 of
E   1983 Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.82 of the Allahabad High
    Court in C.M.P. No. 2798 of 1981.

          B.D. Agrawal, Ambrish Kumar, Pramod Swamp, K.S. Chauhan,
F   Ashok K. Srivastava, S.A. Syed and Dr. N.A. Siddiqui for the appearing
    parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          C.A. Nos. 531:1/83 & 1090/82 :
G
          In these two appeals, the appellant is common and so is the judgment
  under appeal, hence, disposal by a common judgment. Herein, we are
  required to give an interpretation to clause (t) of sub-section (1) of Section
  6 of the U.F. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 [the Act)
H which reads as follows :
                                       738
                      RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN v. STATE                           739
                "6. Exemption of certain land from the imposition of ceiling.- A

-           (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in
            any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into-con-
            sideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area ap-
            plicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure- holder, namely -

               (a) to (e) xxxxx                                                    B

               (f) land held from before the first day of May, 1959, by or under
            a public, religious or charitable waqf, trust, endowment or institu-
            tion the income from which is wholly utilized for religious or
            charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of       C
            which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settlers or members of
            his family or his descendants;"

           The original appellant tenure-holder, now dead and represented by
    his natural grandson, who is also the Mutwalli, was the Wakif or creator
    of a Waqf Alai Aulad created at a period prior to the 1st day of May, 1959 D
    whereby he had devised income of the properties created by Waqf to be
    spent on the welfare of his defined family members, branches of which he
    earmarked as also towards other charitable purposes such as spread of
    education. The tenure- holder claimed exemption under the above-quoted
    provision on the ground that the case squarely fell within the earlier part E
    of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 since it encompassed a
    charitable purpose of public nature when providing for need of education
    etc. The ceiling authorities below answered this question in a workable way
    of a sort in dividing the W akf s income in a ratio expendible on charitable
    and family purposes, and gave relief covering charitable purposes. This
    approach of the authorities was demolished by the High Court in the two F
    writ petitions preferred by the affected parties; the ultimate decision being
    that the Wakf fell within the purview of the latter part of the aforequoted
    provision and since it involved land income of which was partially meant
    for the settler and the members of his fanrily, the tenure-holder could in
    no event claim exemption under the aforequoted provision. The aim here G
    is to apply the said provision, if possible, to the Waqf Alai Aulad which is
    party meant for the benefit of settler and his family and partly for other
    religious and/or charitable purposes.

         It is plain from the reading of the provision that it is not meant to
    apply solely to Waqfs. It is not meant exclusively for the benefit of the H
    740                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A Muslim community. Patently, it is a provision which applies to all and is
  meant to cover public, religious or charitable trusts, endowments or institu-       --
  tions inclusive of Waqf and no room has been made towards importing the
  specific attributes of a particular kind of institution with a particular
  character. What is clearly meant is that if the holder has in his possession
B an institution which holds land and that institution happens to be public,
  religious or charitable, in character, it would get exemption from being part
  of the tenureholder's holding, but if it is partially of that character, it would
  not. So, if it is wholly religious and/or charitable, it gets exemption but if
  it is partially so, it won't. We cannot agree to a Waqf Alai Aulad as known
  to Muslim Law to be 1!ntitled to any differential treatment than what is due
C to institutions at large towards exemption of ceiling of lands in the hands
  of the holders. In this view of the matter, we find no case made out in
  favour of the appellant in order to upset the orders of the High Court
  which has gone on to hold that the Waqf created by the original appellant
  cannot claim exemption under Section 6(1)(f) of the Act. We hold accord-
D ingly:
           Both the appeals, thus, fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.

     CA No. 2356/84 :

E         The appellant, 111ow dead, in the instant appeal is the same as in the
    afore two appeals i.e. CA Nos. 5311/83 and 1090/82. Here, Section 19 of
    the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [the Ceiling Act] has
    been pressed into service laying claim that the lands held by the Waqf do
    not attract the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Section 19 thereof, so far
    relevant, reads as follows .
F
                 "19. Chapter not to apply to certain lands -

                 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), nothing in this
              chapter shall apply to any vacant land held by -

G                xxxxxxxxxxxx

                 (iv) Any public charitable or religious trust (including waqf)
              and required and used for any public charitable or religious pur-
              poses.

H                Provided that tlie exemption under this clause shall apply only
                    RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN v. STAIB                            741
         so long as such land continues to be required and used for such          A
         purpose by such trust."

       The High Court when interpreting the provision has taken the view
that the vacant land-held by such trust if it is required and used for any
public, charitable or religious purpose is exempt from the purview of the
Ceiling Act but the proviso very clearly adds a rider that such exemption         B
shall apply only so long as such land continues to be required and used for
such purpose by such Trust. The emphasise is that vacant land which is
sought to be retrieved from the provisions of the Ceiling Act, must be
"required and used" for any public, charitable or religious purposes. It
would, thus, be obligatory on the Trust or the Waqf, as the case may be,          C
to plead and establish that such vacant land has been kept "required and
used" for such of the purposes as mentioned therein and claim for exemp-
tion cannot be laid merely on the footing that such vacant land is precious
or likely to fetch some income, if put to proper use. At the same time, it
is to be understood that if such land is otherwise income-giving, other than
agricultural, then it is out of the scope of sub-clause (iv) of Section 19 as     D
such purpose cannot be termed as a public, charitable and/or religious
purpose. Instantly, no need of such kind of any particular plot of land has
been pleaded by the appellant in order to establish that it was put and was
expected to be put to use for any public religious or charitable purpose
devised by the Wakf. Since the matter now stands remitted by the High             E
Court to the first appellate authority, it is up to that authority to determine
all questions left to it. We do not intend to comment any further.

     For the foregoing reasons, this appeal too fails and is hereby dis-
missed. No costs.
                                                                                  F
G.N.                                                       Appeal dismissed.