M. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The controversy is a short one. Some land was treated as single crop land by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the Appellate Court has also affirmed the said finding. Now the tenure holder has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri D. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. Shri Chauhan made a very interesting point and on the strict phraseology used in the Explanation to Sec. 4. One may find some merit also in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the Explanation to Sec. 4 lays down that the expression 'single crop land' will mean only such unirrigated land which is capable of growing one crop in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State irrigation work or private irrigation work. He contends that if the land is capable of producing more than one crop then on the language of the provisions, it will have to be treated unirrigated and not a single crop land and the higher multiple of 2 1/2 times has to be applied to such lands as laid down in Sec. 4 (ii). He placed before me the finding recorded by the appellate Court and particularly underlined the sentence "In view of the above facts it is immaterial that whether the appellant had raised single or the double crops on the land in question." In my view in these circumstances one has not go merely by the strict literal interpretation. One has to find out the real legislative intention enshrined in the said provision. Obviously the legislative intention could not be that a higher multiple of unirrigated land to irrigated land should be applicable to lands which grew two crops than to a piece of land which grew only one crop in an agricultural year. The broad legislative intention was that the lands which were capable of producing two crops in an agricultural year in consequence of assured irrigation from any State Irrigation Work or Private Irrigation Work should be treated as irrigated lands and not as unirrigated land. A special facility was given in respect of the areas detailed in Sec. 4 (ii) in respect of which a special category was improvised and described as "single crop land." In such areas because of the lack of fertility, only one crop was capable of being produced in an agricultural year and therefore, multiple of 1 1/2 times was applied. If the land was not capable of producing even one crop in the year then it would be unirrigated land in such areas for which the multiple of 2 1/2 times would be applicable. The argument that if the land produced more than one crop, then it should be treated as unirrigated land and the multiple of 2 1/2 times should be applied would be against the legislative intention, which is incorporated in Sec. 4 read with Sec. 4-A of the Act.
(3.) THIS petition accordingly fails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;