SIRI RAM BATRA AND ORS.versusFINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS.

A                         SIRI RAM BATRA AND ORS.
                                         v.
               FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 17, 2004

B             [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

         East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation)
    Act, 1948-Section 36-Proviso to Amended scheme of Consolidation-
    Benefit of Beshi Phirni Old bhumidars-Held, bhumidars not having interest
C   in land at the time of amendment, not entitled to benefit of scheme.

         Interpretation of Statutes-A statute has to be read and understood
    meaningfully and purposefully in the context of the object or purpose it seeks
    to achieve.

D        The land of Respondent No. 4 was included in the phirni (Laldora)
    when the original Scheme of consolidation was brought into force in the
    year 1987. As per the Scheme he was allotted three time~ area of
    agricultural land in lieu of field No. 1244. The area so allotted was
    comprised in field Nos. 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22. In the year 1988
    respondent No.4 sold his land in Killa No.28/22 measuring 4 bighas and
E   9 biswas to Respondent No.3. The Consolidation Officer, by his order
    dated 25.3.1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos. 102/19 and 102/
    20 to respondent No.3 in lieu of Killa No.28/22, which was included in
    Laldora consequent to the amendment of the Scheme of consolidation.

F         Respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the Financial
    Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding
    (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 on the ground
    that the Consolidation Officer had committed an error in not extending
    the benefit of Beshi Phirni to him by not allotting him three times of the
    value of his land included within the phirni as per
G   the amended Scheme. The Consolidation Officer stated that the
    Beshi Phirni as a result of the inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the
    extended phirni had been given to the appellants on the ground that
    Killa No.28/22 actually formed the pre-consolidation Khasra No.324,
    which was in their bhumidari, that the benefit of Beshi Phirni had to be
H   given to the previous/original bhumidars and that respondent No.3 was
                                         470
         SIRI RAM BATRA v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER                      471

not entitled to such benefit as he had purchased the land in question,         A
which was mutated in his name much after the formation of the original
Scheme. The appellants-old bhumidars were impleaded as parties to the
revision petition. The Financial Commissioner allowed the claim of
respondent No.3. Writ Petition filed by Appellants was dismissed. The
Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed.                                      B
     Before this Court Appellants contended that on the basis of the
amended Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act they being old
bhumidars were entitled for the benefit as a result of inclusion of the
land in Killa No.28/22, that respondent No.3 was not the old bhumidar
and that under the Scheme the Appellants were entitled for the benefit,        C
if any meaning is to be given to the use of the words "old bhumidars"
(Sabik Bhumidars).

     Respondent No. 3 contended that the Courts below have correctly
interpreted the scheme in holding that the benefit was available under
the Scheme to respondent No. 3, and that to interpret the scheme               D
otherwise would lead to an absurdity and/or that rules of interpretation
of statutes do not permit such an interpretation to be given.

     Dismissing the Appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The interpretation placed on Annexure P-1 by the
                                                                               E
Financial Commissioner, as affirmed by the Single Judge as well as by
the Division Bench of the High Court, is a correct interpretation. The
appellants having lost their rights over the land bearing Khasra
No. 324 and having got the land No. 679 in lieu of it, do not have any
right or interest over the land bearing Khasra No. 324 so as to claim          F
any benefit under the amended Scheme as bhumidars when they no
more remained bhumidars on the relevant date and under Annexure P-
l the benefit is to be given to persons, who lost their lands, to compensate
them. The appellants did not lose any land under the new Scheme on
account of extended Laldora. The original bhumidar in relation to the
land in Killa No.28/22 would be respondent No. 4. (478-C, DJ
                                                                               G

     2. It is absurd that a person who no longer has any right in Plot
No. 324 must still get benefit of the amendment. To accept such a
submission would lead to unjustness and unfairness. No rules of
interpretation can permit such an interpretation to be given. [477-F, G)       H
    472                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        3. The Scheme Annexure P-1 must be read and understood in its
    entirety in the given background. Otherwise, the proviso contained in
    Annexure P-1 that "However, Bhumidars who .were allotted pre-
    consolidation area under 21 (1) and the same has been sold to the
    purchasers would be entitled to the aforesaid benefit", will be meaningless
    or redundant. Annexure P-1 cannot be read as a statute. Even a statute
B
    has to be read and understood meaningfully and purposefully in the
    context of the object or purpose it seeks to achieve. [477-H; 478-A, B]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4551 of2000.

C        From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.99 of the Delhi High Court
    in LP.A. No. 468 of 1999.

        N.N. Goswami, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rajendra Dutt, Ms. Neelam
    Sharma and Tarun Sharma for the Appellants.

D         Altaf Ahmad, D.N. Ray and Mrs. Sumita Ray for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. : The only point that arises for determination
    is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of allotment of Beshi
E   Phimi area as a result of inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the extended
    phimi as a result of the amended Scheme of consolidation confirmed on
    12.8.1991.

          One Dinesh Kumar, respondent No. 4 in this appeal, was right-holder
F   of land in field No. 1244 at Alipur at the time of commencement of the
    operation of consolidation. The said land was included in the phimi (Laldora)
    when the original Scheme of consolidation was brought into force in the year
    1987. As per the Scheme he was allotted three times area of agricultural land
    in lieu of field No. 1244. The area so allotted was comprised in field Nos.
    28/12, 28/19 and 28/22. Accordingly he was put in possession of the said
G   lands during the repartition proceedings in the year 1987. Thereafter, in the
    year 1988 the respondent No. 4 sold his land in Killa No. 28/22 measuring
    4 bighas and 9 biswas in the year 1988 to Gautam Jain, respondent No. 3
    herein. This Killa No. 28/22 was Khasra No. 324 earlier, i.e., pre-
    consolidation field number. Since respondent No. 4 had already taken benefit
H   of the inclusion of his land in Field No. 1244 in the Laldora the Consolidation
       SIRI RAM BATRA v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [PATIL, J.]                  473

 Officer, by his order dated 25.3.1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos.       A ·
  102/19 and 102/20 to respondent No. 3 in lieu ofKilla No. 28/22, which was
 included in Laldora consequent to the amendment of the Scheme of
 consolidation. The respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition before the
 Financial Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding
 (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the             B
 Act'), making a grievance that the Consolidation Officer had committed an
 error in not extending the benefit bf Beshi Phimi to him by not allotting him
 three times of the valw~ of his land included within the phirni as per the
 amended Scheme. The Consolidation Officer, in the comments offered by
 him to the revision petition, stated that the Beshi Phirni as a result of the
  inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the extended phirni has been given to          C
 the appellants on the ground that Killa No. 28/22 actually formed the pre-
 consolidation Khasra No. 324, which was in their bhumidari. It was further
 explained that the benefit of Beshi Phirni had to be given to the previous/
  original bhumidars and that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to such
  benefit as he had purchased the land in question, which was mutated in his         D
" name much after the formation of the original Scheme. In view of the
  comments the appellants were impleaded as parties to the revision petition.
  The learned Financial Commissioner, after elaborately considering the
  respective contentions of the parties in the light of the material placed before
  him, allowed the claim of respondent No. 3 by order dated 23.10.1992. The
  appellants being aggrieved by the said Ot"der of the Financial Commissioner        E
  filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 68 of 1993 before the High Court. Learned
  single Judge of the High Court by a detailed and well-considered order did
  not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently the writ petition was
  dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeal No. 468
  of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned               F
 judgment the Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with the findings
  recorded by the learned single Judge affirming the order of the Financial
 Commissioner, dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.

      Learned senior counsel for the appellants, on the basis of the amended
Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act (Annexure P-1 - translated                 G
version), urged that the appellants being old bhumidars were entitled for the
benefit as a result of inclusion of the land Kila No. 28/22 (the original khasra
No. 324), of which the appellants were bhumidars. In particular, he drew
our attention to the portion in Annexure P-1 "While allotting plots the right
for allotment would be of the old bhumidars only if their names are                  H
    474                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   mentioned in the list". According to him respondent No. 3 is not the old
    bhumidar. The learned counsel urged that under the Scheme the appellants
    were entitled for the, benefit, if any meaning is to be given to the use of the
    words "old bhumidars" (Sabik Bhumidars) in Annexure P-1.

          Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued that the
B
    Financial Commissioner, the learned single Judge as well as the Division
    Bench of the High Court have correctly interpreted Annexure P-1 in holding
    that the benefit was available under the Scheme to respondent No. 3. He
    pointed out specifically to the portion of the Scheme "However, Bhumidars
    who were allotted preconsolidation area under 21 ( l) ~nd the same has been
c   sold the purchasers would be entitled to the aforesaid benefit". In view of
    this proviso in Annexure P-1 no fault can be found with the impugned
    judgment.

         We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
    counsel for the parties.
D
          The appellants were original bhumidars of land bearing Khasra No. 324
    in village Alipur. This land was included in Laldora. Pursuant to their
    application the appellants were allotted plot No. 679 in lieu of land bearing
    Khasra No., 324, whic~ was accepted. Thus the appellants ceased to have
E   any right or interest over the land No. 324 after accepting the plot No. 679
    in lieu of it as stated above. It is thereafter the land bearing Khasra No. 324
    was allotted to respondent No. 4 in lieu of his plot No. ·1244, which was
    included in Laldora area.
                       '

          It is better to notice material events to appreciate the respective
F
    contentions. The consolidation proceedings were started in village Alipur
    under the Act in the year 1987. The Scheme of consolidation prepared under
    Section 19 of the Act was confirmed under Section 20 of the Act by the
    Settlement Officer on 24. 7.1987 in respect of the said village. The
    respondent No. 4 was right-holder of the land in field No. 1244 of the said
G   village. This land was included in the phimi (Laldora) when the original
    Scheme of consolidation came into force in the year 1987. He got the.benefit
    of inclusion of this land in the extended Laldora and was allotted three times
    area of agricultural land of the pre-consolidation area comprising of three
    field numbers given new Killa numbers during the repartition, namely, 28/
H   12, 28/l 9 and 28/22 (pre-consolidation field No. 324) each measuring 4
     SJRI RAM BATRA v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [PATIL, J.]                   475

bighas and 9 biswas. Thereafter, he sold his land Killa No. 28/22 to                A
respondent No. 3 in the year 1988. Thus, the respondent No. 4 had availed
the benefit in lieu of inclusion of his land field No. 1244. The Scheme was
amended on 24. 7 .1991, i.e., long after the respondent No. 3 purchased the
land Killa No. 28/22. By the amended Scheme of consolidation the Laldora
was extended by inclusion of land measuring 56 bighas and 6 biswas                  B
comprised in various field numbers including No. 324.

      From the events mentioned above, it is clear that the appellants ceased
to be the bhumidars of the field No. 324 from the date they got the land field
No. 679, which they accepted in lieu of the land No. 324. Thereafter,
respondent No. 4 became the owner of the Killa No. 28/22 (old Khasra No.            C
324) as it was allotted to him in lieu of inclusion of his land No. 1244.
Further, respondent No. 3 purchased the said land much later. As on the date
of approval of the amended Scheme of consolidation the respondent No. 3
was owner of this land having purchased it under registered sale deed from
respondent No. 4.                                                                   D
     The Financial Commissioner in his order, looking to the Hindi version
of the amended Scheme (Annexure P-1), has observed, thus: -

         "This controversy is set at rest by the reading of the Hindi version
         of the amended scheme of consolidation, which amplifies the                E
         position. It has been laid down therein that the Beshi Phimi shall
         go to the original right holder according to the original scheme.
         However, in cases the right holders who have transferred the land
         after repartition under section 21 ( l) of the Act, the benefit of Beshi
         Phimi shall accrue to the purchaser. Here, in this case, admittedly
         the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 had been allotted plot No. 679 during
                                                                                    F
         repartition in lieu of Khasra No. 324. They did not raise any
         objection against this allotment. Consequently, allotment of plot
         No. 679 became final. It is also not the case of these respondents
         that Khasra No. 324 had been included within the extended phimi
         in the original scheme of consolidation. That being so, their right        G
         to the benefit of Beshi Phimi stood waived at that stage itself. Killa
         No. 28/22 is admittedly the new number of pre-consolidation Khasra
         No. 324. Allotment of Killa No. 28/22 was made to Shri Dinesh
         Kumar along with Killa Nos. 28/12 and 28/19 during repartition
         under Section 21 (I) of the Act in lieu of his pre-consolidation khasra
                                                                                    H
    476                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A           No. 1244 which was consumed in the extended phimi in pursuance
            of the original consolidatiqn scheme of the village and Dinesh
            Kumar was given the benefit of Beshi phimi at the moment. Later
            on, the petitioner purchased the land allotted to Dinesh Kumar under
            Section 21(1) of the Act. Now, out of the land so purchased by the
B           petitioner, KiHa No. 28/22 has been included within the extended
            phimi pursuant to the amended scheme of consolidation Apparently,
            after allotment under section 21(1) of the Act, Dinesh Kumar
            transferred land to the amended scheme of consolidation, the
            petitioner was the bhumidar of Killa No. 28/2'!. His case is fully
            covered under the provisions of the amended scheme which envisages
c           categorically that in case of the right-holder who transferred the land
            after repartition under section 21 (l ), the benefit of Beshi phimi shall
            accrue to the purchaser. Undisputedly, the petitioner was the
            bonafide purchaser of Killa No. 28/22 at the relevant time and as
            such he is fully entitled to the benefit, as claimed by him."
D
         Learned single Judge of the High Court in his order has reproduced the
    operative portion of the order dated 25.3.1992 made by the Consolidation
    Officer, which reads: -

                 "IN THE COURT OF THE CONSOLIDATION
E                           OFFICER: DELHI

                   Case No. 3097 to 3105/C.O. Village Alipur

                                                           Date of Order: 25.3.92.

F           During the consolidation proceedings in village Alipur which were
            taken up in the year 1986, some of the lands holders who were
            deprived of their rights for residential plots as per their demands,
            moved the court of the S.O.(C) and some of them went to the
            Hon'ble Financial Commissioner. Their pleas for allotment of
            residential plots were upheld by the S.O.(C) and the Hon'ble F.C.
G           respectively and the cases were remitted back for allotment of
            residential plots to the aggrieved persons in the extended abadi.

            The scheme was amended u/s 36 of the Act with a view to
            accommodate the demand created for allotment of residential plots
H           to the above category of land holders who were earlier denied
     SIRI RAM BATRA v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [PATIL, J.]                 477

        residential plots and phirni who extended for an area measuring 56        A
        Big. 6 Bis. on the Northern side. The demand of majority of persons
        who were to be allotted residential plots was for the North or North
        West side. However, an application dated 10.9.91 moved by Jai
        Singh S/O Bharat Singh and six others for extending the abadi in
        the South-East side on the ground that their homes in the village are     B
        situated in that side, thus asking for plots near their houses. It was
        not found feasible to extend the phirni on the South-West side as
        there are large number of built up structure abutting the G.T. Road
        and the pre-extended phirni, i.e. the Farm Road. On the East side
        there is no land as the pre-extended phirni touches the G.T. Road."
                                                                                  c
     Learned single Judge, having regard to the findings of fact recorded by
the Financial Commissioner and also looking to the amended Scheme as per
Annexure P-1, rightly dismissed the writ petition.

      The Division Bench of the High Court, as is evident from the impugned
judgment, having looked into the order made by the Financial Commissioner         D
as well as by the learned single Judge, did not find any error in the findings
recorded by both of them. In the impugned judgment it is observed that "the
rights of the appellants in Plot No. 324 had come to an end the moment they
were allotted and accepted Plot No. 679 in the extended Lal Dora. Merely
because there was a subsequent amendment of the Consolidation Scheme, it          E
does not mean that the old rights get revived. Once appellants accepted Plot
No. 679 they had no further rights in Plot No. 324. If Plot No. 324 now gets
included in the amended scheme the benefit must go to the purchaser.

      It has been strenuously urged that to hold as above would lead to an
absurdity and/or that rules of interpretation of statutes do not permit such an   F
interpretation to be given. In our view a submission that a person who no
longer has any right in Plot No. 324 must still get benefit of the amendment
is an absurd submission. To accept such a submission would lead to
unjustness and unfairness. No rules of interpretation can permit such an
interpretation to be given. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere wit!l the
                                                                                  G
impugned judgment."

      In view of what is stated above, we find it difficult to accept the
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that they were entitled to the
land in question only on the ground that they were original bhumidars. The
Scheme Annexure P-1 must be read and understood in its entirety in the given      H
    478                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   background. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is to
    be accepted the proviso contained in Annexure P-1 that "However, Bhumidars
    who were allotted preconsolidation area under 2 I (1) and the same has been
    sold the purchasers would be entitled to the aforesaid benefit", will be·
    meaningless or redundant. Annexure P-1 cannot be read as a statute. Even
B   a statute has to be read and understood meaningfully and purposefully in the
    context of the object or purpose it seeks to achieve.

          In our view, the interpretation placed on Annexure P-1 by the Financial
    Commissioner, as affirmed by the learned single Judge as well as by the
    Division Bench of the High Court, is a correct interpretation. The appellants
C   having lost their rights over the land bearing Khasra No. 324 and having got
    the land No. 679 in lieu of it, do not have any right or interest over the land
    bearing Khasra No. 324 so as to claim any benefit under the amended Scheme
    as bhumidars when they no more remained bhumidars on the relevant date
    and under Annexure P-1 the benefit is to be given to persons, who lost their
D   lands, to compensate them. The appellants did not lose any land under the
    new Scheme on account of extended Laldora. The original bhumidar in
    relation to the land Killa No. 28/22 would be respondent No. 4.

         Thus, viewed from any angle no fault can be found with the impugned
    judgment. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently it is.
E   dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

    V.M.                                                       Appeal dismissed.