Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) the appellant who has come up by certificate has urged a point which we do not think has any merit.
(2.) The short question that arises under the Madhya Pradesh Celling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 20 of 1960) (for short, the Act) is whether the appellant a company owning sugarcane factory,was bound to make a return in terms of Section 9 of the Act. Although the definition contained in Section 2 (d) of ceiling area refers to Section 7 and section states that a person is entitled to hold land up to twenty five standard acres, other than exempted land, and although the provisions in Section 3 regarding exempted lands start with the preliminary statement that the lands mentioned therein "shall be exempted from the provisions of the this Act", we are inclined to the view that S. 9 must be interpreted in the setting and context thereof and having due regard to the purpose of the provision.
(3.) The statutory objective was to have before the State Government or the appointed officers enforcing land reforming laws all the land held by various persons in the State exempted or not from the operation thereof on account of specific provisions in the Act. That is why S. 9 is widely worded and expressly includes the exempted land for the purpose of return. In this view of the matter there is no need to interfere with the construction adopted by the High Court and we affirm the interpretation of the section accepted by the High Court;