U.P. BHOODAN YAGNA SAMITI, U.P.versusBRAJ KISHORE & ORS.

                  U.P. BHOODAN YAGNA SAMIT!, U.P.
                                                                                    A
                                 v.
                        BRAJ KISHORE & ORS.

                             SEPTEMBER 9, 1988

            [G.L OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHEITY, JJ.]                                 8
                                                                                /
           U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952: Sections 14 and 15-Grant of
     land to landless persons-To be made in accordance-with the Bhoodan
     Yagna Scheme and the philosophy behind the Bhoodan Movement.

           The Respondents, in 1968, obtained grant from Bhoodan Yagna
     Samiti under section 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, of various              c
     plots of land situated in a village in Kanpur. On the basis of a report
     submitted by the Tehsildar co_ncerned in 1972, the Additional Collector
~
!
     issued notices to the respondents under the Act, requiring them to show
     cause as to why the settlement obtained by them should not be cancelled
     on the grounds, that they-did not reside in the village where the plots        D
     are situated, that they did not fall under the category of landless
     persons and that the grants had not been approved by the Government.
     After considering the objections filed by the respondents, the
     Additional Collector quashed all the grants made in favour of the
     respondents.                                      -
                                                                                    E
           Against the order of the. Additional Collector, the respondents
     filed writ petitions in the High Court •. The High Court held that the
     respondents were covered by the definition 'landless persons' as they
     had uo land in that village-and the district, though they may be traders
     and paying income-tax aud may have properties in the city of Kanpur,
     and quashed the order passed by the Additional Collector and main-             F
     tained the grants in favour of the respondents. These appeals are
     against the said order of the High Court.

)          On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the expression
     'landless person' has to be interpreted in the background of the law and



l    the philosophy behind the movement which was the basis of the enact-
     ment of the law.

           Allowing these appeals,
                                                                                    G




II        HELD: I. I It is now well settled that in order to interpret a law
     one must understand the background and the purpose for which the law
                                       859
                                                                                    H
    860          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 I1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    was enacted. If one has bothered to understand the common phrase
A
    used in the Bhoodan Movement as 'Bhoomihin Kissan' which has been
    translated into English to mean 'landless persons' there would have
    been no difficulty. [868F-G]

          1.2 At the time when Acharya Vinoba Bhave started his move-
B   ment of Bhoodan Yagna our rural society had a peculiar diversity.
    There were some who owned or had leasehold rights in vast tracks
    of agricultural lands. And there were those who were working as
    labourers in the fields and depending on what little they got from their
    masters. Sometimes they were even bound down to their masters and
    therefore had to lead a miserable life. It was this problem in rural India
    which attracted the attention of Acharya Vinoba Bhave followed by
c   Shri Jaya Prakash Narain and they secured large donations of land
    from big land-holders and the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna movement
    was to distribute this land to those 'Bhoomihin Kissan' who were living
    on agriculture but had no land of their own. It was to make this effec-
    tive and statutory that this law was enacted and in this context it is clear
D   that if one had noticed even the slogan of the Acharya Vinoba Bhave's
    movement or its basis and the purpose, it would have clearly indicated
    the problem which was to be remedied by this enactment and if this was
    looked into for the purpose of interpretation of the term 'landless
    persons' no Court could have come to the conclusion which has been
    arrived at in the instant case. [866C-F]
E
          2. Section 15 provides that all grants shall be made so far as
    may be in accordance with the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna. It could
    not be disputed that Bhoodan Yagna scheme only contemplated
    allotment of lands in favour of those landless agricultural labourers who
    were residing in the villages concerned and whose source of livelihood
F   was agriculture. In that context only, the expression 'landless person'
    could be understood as contemplated under section 14. Section ·14
    was amended in 1975 to substitute the words 'landless agricultural
    labourers' in place of 'landless persons'. The objects and reasons
    contained in the Amendment Bill clearly go to show that it was because
    of such errors committed that it became necessary to make this
G   amendment. [864G-H; 865A-B]

         Lord Dennings's 'The Discipline of law', pp. 10, 12 and 'Vinoba
    and His Mission· by Suresh Ra"!, referred to.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
H   1866-68 of 1988.
            U.P. YAGNA SAMIT! v. BRAJ KISHORE !OZA, J.I              861

     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1986 of the Allahabad           A
High Court in C.M. W.P. Nos. 149, 151and172 of 1976.    •

      R.C. Misra, B.B. Singh for the Appellant.

      R.K. Jain, R.K. Khanna and R.P. Singh forthe Respondents.
                                                                            B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     OZA, J. These appeals have been filed by the U.P. Bhooden
Yagna Samiti, Kanpur against the judgment of the High Court of
Allahabad delivered in Misc. Writ Petition No. 149/76, 151/76 and
172/76. By the impugned order the High Court quashed the Order
passed By Additional Collector, Kanpur dated 1.1.76 quashing the
                                                                            c
Pattas granted in favour of the respondent.

      In the month of April and May, 1968 the Petitioner before the
High Court i.e. present respondent obtained grant under Sec. 14 of the
U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act in respect of various plots of land situated in     D
Village Jahangirabad Paragana Ghatampur, District Kanpur from
Bhoodan Yagna Samiti on 17.5.1972. Tehsildar Ghatampur submitted
a report to Collector, Kanpur and on the basis thereof the Additional
Collector, Kanpur issued notices to these respondents under Sections
of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act requiring them to show as to why the
settlement obtained by them be .not cancelled on following grounds:         E

            "(i) As the petitioners did not reside in the village where
            the plots were situated they had obtained the grants fraudu-
            lently and by misrepresenting facts.

            (ii) As the petitioners did not fall in the category of land-   F
            less persons it was not proper to make the grants in their
            favour.

            (iii) The grants had not been approved by the Government
            ofU.P."
                                                                            G
After considering the objections filed by the respondents, the Addi-
tional Collector came to the conclusion that the Order of the Bhoodan
Yagna Samiti settling the land could not be justified as it could only be
made in favour of poor landless agricultural labourers and not in
favour of persons like the respondents who were quite well off and
who reside in the city of Kanpur, owned propery there and carried on        H
    862        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A business. In his opinion such persons did not fall in the category of
  landless persons as contemplated under the Act and the grants made in
  their favour in the year 1968 were irregular and liable to be set aside
  and on the basis of these reasons the Additional Collector by his order
  dated 1.1. 76 quashed all the grants made in favour of the three respon-
  dents against which the writ petitions were filed before the High Court
B of Allahabad and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of
  the High Court quashed the order passed by the Additional Collector
  and maintained the grants in favour of the respondents and against this
  order of the High Court by grant of leave the present appeals are
  before us.

        Before the High Court two questions were raised. First was
C J1bout the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector as under the Act the
  duties were cast on the Collector to enquire into these matters and
  therefore on that ground it was contended before the High Court that
  Additional Collector has no jurisdiction. The other ground which was
  raised before the High Court was that the view taken by the Additional
D Collector is not in accordance with law. So far as the first ground is
  concerned, even the High Court held against the respondents and
  before us learned counsel for parties conceded that to that part of the
  High Court Judgment there is no challenge and this now is not in
  dispute that the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to enquire into
  the matter and therefore on that ground it is not necessary for us to
E dilate any more.

          We are therefore mainly concerned with as to whether the settle-
    ment made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in favour of the respondents
    was in accordance with law or which was not in accordance with law
    and therefore Additional Collector was right in setting aside those
F   allotments.

        As regards the second question, the facts in this case are not in
  dispute. The respondents are businessmen residing in Kanpur. It is not
  in dispute that they have their trade in Kanpur and have properties
  also and are income tax payers. It is also not in dispute that they are
G not agriculturists and they had at the time of allotment nothing to do
  with agriculture. Apart from it their source of livelihood was not
  agriculture at all but trade and business. It is also not in dispute that
  they did not fall into any of the categories of persons depending on
  agriculture who did not have land in their name. On this ground, it was
  contended before the Additional Collector that in fact the allotment        •
H was obtained by the respondents by misrepresenting that they are
           u~-P. YAGNA SAMIT! v. BRAJ KISHORE [OZA, J.]            863

landless persons and on the basis of this the allotments were made
                                                                          A
which could not be justified.

      Before the High Court it was contended that Sec. 14 of the U .P.
Bhoodan Yagna Act which provides for allotment of land only talks of
landless persons. Sec. 14 as it stood in the year 1968 enabled the Samiti
to settle the land vested in it with landless persons. Section neither B
specifies that such landless persons should also be agricultural
labourers nor it provided that they have to be residents of a place in
which the concerned lands were located. It was also not provided that
the persons must be such whose source of livelihood is agriculture. The
High Court on the basis of its earlier decision felt that Section 14 as it
stood in 1968 did not provide any one of these qualifying clauses and
therefore the respondents who admittedly had no land in that village      c
and the district, they were covered by the definition of landless
persons, in spite of the fact that they may be traders and paying
income-tax, may have properties in the City of Kanpur, still the
learned Judges of the High Court felt that they fell within the ambit of
the definition of landless persons as it stood in 1968 and therefore D
settlement made in their favour was justified. High Court relied on
Sec. 14 as it stood in 1968. It reads:

           "Grant of land to landless persons-The Committee or
           such other authority or person as the Committee may, with
           the approval of the State Government specify either gener-     E
           ally or in respect of any area, may in the manner pres-
           cribed, grant lands which have vested in it to the landless
           persons, and the grantee of the land shall-

           (i) where the land is situate in any estate which has vested
           in the State Government under and in accordance with           F
           Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Land Abolition and
           Reforms Act, 1950, enquire in such land the rights and the
           liabilities of a sirdar, and

           (ii) where it is situate in any other area, acquire therein
           such rights and liabilities and subject to such conditions,    G
           restrictions and limitations as may be prescribed and the
           same shall have effect, any law to the contrary notwith-
           standing." ·

It is not disputed that these allotments were made in accordance with
Sec. 14 but had not been approved by the Government and it was even       H
    864         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                I1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A before that the Additional Collector took notice of the complaint and
  issued notice to the respondents and on the basis of his enquiry he
  cancelled the allotments made in their .favour by the Order in 1976
  which has been quashed by the High Court.

          It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
B   (Bhoodan Yagna Samiti) that although Sec. 14 quoted above does not
    clearly indicate what the law meant by landless persons but in view of
    the scheme of Bhooden Yagna the movement which Acharya Vinoba
    Bhave and later Jaya Prakash Narain carried out and the purpose of
    the movement clearly indicated that when in Sec. 14 allotment was
    contemplated in favour of landless persons it only meant those landless
    persons whose main source of livelihood was agriculture and who were
c   agriculturists residing in the village where the land is situated and who
    has no land in their name at that time. It never meant that all those rich
    persons who are residing in the cities and have properties in their
    possession but who are technically landless persons as they did not
    have any agricultural land in their name in the tehsil or the village
D   where the land was situated or acquired by the Bhoodan Samiti that it
    could be allotted in their favour. This was not the purpose or the
    philosophy of Bhoodan Yagna and therefore it was contended that
    such a view which has been taken by the learned Judges of the High
    Court is contrary to law and the interpretation put by the High Court
    on the language of Sec. 14 could not be justified. It was contended that
E   landless person has to be interpreted in the background of the law
    which was enacted and the movement and the philosophy behind the
    movement which was the basis of the enactment of this law and it is
    only in that background that these words 'landless persons' could be
    properly interpreted.

F       It was also contended that if there was any doubt left, Sec. 15
    makes the things still clearer. Sec. 15 reads:

                "Grants to be made in accordance with Bhoodan Yagna
                Scheme-All grants shall be made as far as may be in
                accordance with scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna."
G
  Sec. 15 provides that all grants shall be made so far as may be in
  accordance with the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna, and it could not
  be disputed that Bhoodan Yagna scheme only contemplated allotment
  of lands in favour of those landless agricultural labourers who were
  residing in the villages concerned and whose source of livlihood was
H agriculture and who were landless and in that context only the landless
                U.P. YAGNA SAMITI v. BRAJ KISHORE [OZA, J.]               865

    person could be understood as coptemplated ·under Sec. 14. It appears
                                                                                 A
    that in 1975 by an amendment in place of 'landless persons' in Sec. 14
    'landless agricultural labourer~' was substituted and the objects and
    reasons when this Amendment Bill was moved, clearly go to show that
    it was because of such errors committed that it became necessary to
    make this amendment. The Objects and Reasons of the Uttar Pradesh
    Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975 reads:                                   B

                "Prefatory Note-Statement of Objects and Reasons-The
                Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 provides for dis-
                tribution of Bhoodan land to the landless persons by the
                Uttar.Pradesh Bhoodan Samiti. It has come to the notice of
                Government that in certain cases persons other than land-
                less persons have also rccc.ived by fraud the land donated       c
                under the said Act. It has ·also come to the notice of
                Government that in many cases, for various reasons, the
                land vested in the Committee is not actually distributed. It
                has, therefore, been considered necessary to empower the
                Collector to cancel the grants received by misrepresenta-        D
                tion or fraud, and further, where the committee does not
                grant the land within a period of three years to authorise
                him to distribute the land according to the provisions of the
                Act."

    By this Amendment Act in Sec. 14 in place of landless person 'landless       E
    agricultural labourers' was substituted, and this clearly shows. that it
    became necessary only because such errors were committed in. under-
    standing the meaning of words 'landless persons'.

          The rule of interpretation which had been generally accepted in
1
    later part of 19th century and the first half of 20th century was that the   F
    word should be given its plain ordinary dictionary meani~g and it is
    clear that learned Judges of the High Court in the impugned judgment
    interpreted the words 'landless persons' on that basis and in so doing
    they followed their earlier judgment. But if the scheme of Bhoodan
    Yagna which has to be looked into because of Sec. 15 has been looked
    into or the purpose of the movement of Bhoodan Yagna which was               G
    started by late Acharya Vinoba Bhave and followed by Shri Jaya
    Prakash Narain was understood, this interpretation would not have
    been possible.

         In India we have yet another problem. The movement and the
    problems which are debated at all levels is not in the language in which     H
    866         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [ 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    ultimately the law to meet those situations was enacted. The Bhoodan
A
    Yagna movement used generally a' term 'Bhoomihin Kissan' and it is
    this term which gained momentum and virtually was understood to
    mean those agricultural labourers whose main source of livlihood is
 · agriculture but who have no lands of their own or who have no lands
  . (agricultural) recorded in their names in the revenue record and it is
B this problem of 'Bhoomihin Kissan' that this movement went on to to
    settle and this Act was enacted to remedy that problem but our
    draftsman while drafting the law borrowed the phrase 'landless person'
    in place of 'Bhoomihin Kissan' and this unfortunately led to the pre-
    sent interpretation put by the High Court in the impugned judgment as
    the High Court followed the rule of interpretation which in my
    opinion has become obsolete.
c
          At the time when Acharya Vinoba Bhave started his movement
    of Bhoodan Yagna our rural society had a peculiar diversity. There
    were some who owned or had leasehold rights in vast tracks of
    agricultural lands whereas on the other hand there were those who
D   were working on agriculture as labourers in the fields and depending
    on what little they got from their masters. Sometimes they were even
    bound down to their masters and therefore had to lead miserable life.
    It was this problem in rural India which attracted the attention of
    Acharya Vinoba Bhave followed by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain and they
    secured large donations of land from big land holders and the scheme
E   of the Bhoodan Yagna movement was to distribute this land to those
    'Bhoomihin Kissan' who were living on agriculture but had no land 9f
    their own and it was to make this effective and statutory that this law
    was enacted and in this context it is clear that if one had noticed even
    the slogan of the Acharya Vinoba Bhave's movement or its basis and
    the purpose it would have clearly indicated the problem which was to
F   be remedied by this enactment and if this was looked into for the
    purpose of interpretation of the term 'landless persons' no Court could
    have come to the conclusion which has been arrived at in the impugned
    judgment.

          In this country we have a her_itage of rich literature, it is interest-
G   ing to note that literature of interpretation also is very well-known.
    The principles of interpretation have been enunciated in various
    Shlokas which have been known for hundreds of years. One such
    Shlok (Verse) which describes these principles with great precision is:


H         "UPKRAMOP SANHARO ABHYASO UPPURWATTA
            U.P. YAGNA SAMITI v. BRAJ KISHORE [OZA, l.]                 867

      FALAM ARTHWADOPPATII CH LINGAM TATPARYA
                                                                               A
      NIRNAYE"

      This in short means that when you have to draw the conclusion
from a writing you have to read it from beginning till end. As without
doing it, it is difficult to understand the purpose, if there is any repeti-
tion or emphasis its meaning must be understood. If there is. any              B
curiosity or a curious problem tackled it should be noticed and the
result thereof must be understood. If there is any new innovation
(U ppurwatta) or something new it should be taken note of. Then one
must notice the result of such innovation. Then it is necessary to find
what the author intends to convey and in what context.

       This principle of interpretation was not enunciated only for            c
interpretation of law but it was enunciated for interpretating any piece
of lit.erature and it meant that when you have to give meaning to
anything in writing then you must understand the real meaning. You
can only understand the real meaning by understanding the reference,
context, the.circumstances in which it was stated and the problems or          D
the situations which were intended to be met by what was said and it is
only when you take into consideration all this background, circums-
tances and the problems which have to be tackled that you could really
understand the real meaning of the words. This exactly is the principle
which deserves to be considered.
                                                                               E
      When we are dealing with the phrase 'landless persons' these
words are from English language and therefore I am reminded of what
Lord Denning said about it. Lord Denning in 'The Discipline of Law'
at Page No. 12 observed as under:

            "Whenever a statute comes up for consideration it must be          F
            remembered that it is not within human powers 'to foresee
            the manifold sets-of facts which may arise, and, even if it
            were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free
           ·from all ambiguity. The English language is not an instru-
            ment of ·mathematical precision. Our literature would be
            much the poorer if it were, This is where the draftsmen of         G
            Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticized. A
            Judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule
            that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments
            that the draftsmen have not provides! for this or that, or
            have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would cer-
            tainly save the judges' t~ouble if Acts of Parliament were         H
    868        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

               draft.ed with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In the
A
               absence of it, when a defect appears a judge cannot simply
               fold his hands and blame the draftsmen. He must set to
               work on the constructive task of finding the intention of
               Parliament."

B        And it is clear that when one has to look to the intention of the
    Legislature, one has to look to the circumstances under which the law
    was enacted. The Preamble of the law, the mischief which was
    intended to be remedied by the enactment of the statute and in this
    context, Lord Denning, in the same book at Page No. 10, observed as
    under:
c              "At one time the Judges used to limit themselves to the
               bare reading of the Statute itself-to go simply by the words,
               giving them their grammatical meaning and that was all.
               That view was prevalent in the 19th century and still has
               some supporters today. But it is wrong in principle. The
D              Statute as it appears to those who have to obey it-and to
               those who have to advise them what to do about it; in short,
               to lawyers like yourselves. Now the eccentrics cut off from
               all that is happening around them. The Statute comes to
               them as men of affairs-who have their own feeling for the
               meaning of the words and know the reason why the Act
E              was passed-just as if it had been fully set out in a pream-
               ble. So it has been held very rightly that you can enquire
               into the mischief which gave rise to the Statute,-to see
               what was the evil which it was sought to remedy."

  It is now well settled that in order to interpret a law one must under-
F stand the background and the purpose for which the law was enacted.
  And in this context as indicated earlier if one has bothered to under-
  stand the common phrase used in the Bhoodan Movement as 'Bhoomi-
  hin Kissan' which has been translated into English to mean 'landless
  persons' there would have been no difficulty but apart from it even as
  contended by learned counsel that it was clearly indicated by Sec. 15
G that the allotments could only be made in acco"rdance with the scheme
  of Bhoodan Yagna. In order to understand the scheme of Bhoodan
  and the movement of Shri Vinoba Bhave, it would be worthwhile to
  quote from 'Vinoba And His Mission' by Suresh Ram printed with an
  introduction by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain and foreword by Dr. S.
  Radhakrishnan. In this work, statement of annual Sarvodya Confe-
H rence at Sevapuri has been quoted as under:
           U.P. YAGNA SAMIT! v. BRAJ KISHORE [OZA, J.]               869

           "The fundamental principle of the Bhoodan Yagna move-
                                                                            A
           ment is that all children of the soil have an equal right over
           the Mother -Earth, in the same way as those born of a
           mother have over her. It is, therefore, essential that the
           entire land of the country should be equitably redistributed
           anew, providing roughly at least five acres of dry land or
           one acre of wet land to every family. The Sarvodaya Samaj,       B
           by appealing to the good sense of the people, should pre-
           pare their minds for this equitable distribution and acquire
           within the next two years at least 25 lakhs of acres of land
           from about five lakhs of our villages on the rough basis of
           five acres per village. This land will be distributed to.those
           landless labourers who are versed in agriculture, want .to
           take to it, and have no other means of subsistence."             c
                                       (Underlining for emphasis by us)

This would clearly indicate the purpose of the scheme of Bhoodan
Yagna and it is clear that Sec. 15 provided that all allotments in
accordance with Sec. 14 could only be done under the scheme of the          D
Bhoodan Y agna.

      In the light .of the discussion above therefore, the judgment of
the High Court could not be maintained. The appeals are therefore
allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the orders
passed by the Additional Collector are restored. Appellant shall be         E
entiled to costs of the appeals, counsel fee Rs.1,500 in each of these
three appeals.

G.N.                                                  Appeals allewed.