Natarajan, J. - (1.) In these appeals by special leave, the appellants assail the interpretation given to certain provisions. of S. 4-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 as amended by U. P. Acts 18 of 1973 and 20 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Alliahabad High Court. Conflicting interpretations had been given by single Judges on the relevant provisions and hence a reference was made in Kallu v. State of U. P. and Ors. (Civil Misc. Civil Petition No. 11370 of 1975) to which connected writ petitions were tagged on to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on two questions viz."1. What is the true scope and effect of sub-clause (b) of clause 'firstly' of S. 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." The Division Bench, in its reported judgment Kallu v. State of U. P., 1979 All U 1113 has discussed the matter and answered the two questions as under: "Clause 'firstly' of S. 4-A requires the Prescribed Authority to form an opinion as to whether, during the material Fasli years, irrigation facilities were available from such sources as are enumerated therein in respect of any crop. The relevant consideration is merely the existence 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 is no justifiable reason 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 S. 4-A are available only to a part of the total area of 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 irrigation facilities were available. We are consequently of the opinion that if a large plot consists partly of an area to which irrigation facilities are available 'as also some to which irrigation 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 'user land' as defined in the Act and determined in the manner provided by the Rules will have to he excluded even though irrigation facilities may have been available to it. Similarly other varieties of land exempted under S. 6 will have to be excluded from consideration. As far as sub clause (b) of Clause 'firstly' is concerned, the requirement is 'that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years' (emphasis supplied) The expression such land, it is obvious, means land referred to in sub-clause (a) of Cl. firstly' The word used in sub-clause (b) is' in' and not 'over' and consequently if the crops were grown in any portion of the area of a plot to which irrigation facility was available under sub-clause (a) of Clause 'firstly', the entire area to which irrigation facility was available shall have to be treated as land in which 1 two crops were grown. The requirement of sub clause (b) of Clause 'firstly' of S. 4-A is not that every inch of the land to which irrigation facilities were available in the material years should have grown double crops. To take a hypothetical example, if to a plot of land 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 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 building or locality. Similarly when it is said that one has grown trees in a piece of land or raised crops therein, it does not 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 agricultural science have made rapid progress and human ingenuity coupled with labour and application of scientific know-how has successfully 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 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 productivity of the land and consequently no premium should 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 tenure-holder's 'irrigated land' under Clause 'firstly' of S. 4-A 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 any part of such area at least two crops were grown it must hold the entire area or 'irrigated land'. Such an interpretation resolves the problem which the Prescribed Authority would be faced with in determination of the 'irrigated land' of a tenure holder where records reveal the growing of the crops on varying areas of his, holding during the material 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 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 S. 4-A since both the 'conditions laid in sub-clauses (a) and (b) will be complied with." "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 S. 4-A of the Act In Ghasi Ram v. State of U. P., (supra) and similar opinion expressed in Surajpal Singh v. State of U. P., 1978 All 1243 and Sitaram Tyagi v. State of U. P., (Writ No. 8 115 of 1975 decided on 22nd September, 1978, 1978 AWC SOC 164 page 90) have not been correctly decided."
(2.) Thereafter, the writ petitions 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 plots 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 judgment, Civil Appeal No. 3241 of 79 has been filed. In the other appeal which arises from the dismissal of Civil Misc. 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 of U. P. (supra).
(3.) 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.;