- (1.) THE petitioner is the zamin dar of plots Nos. 1616 and 1617 which lie within the municipal limits of Saharan-pur. On August 13, 1946, he executed a registered lease of these two plots for 20 years at a yearly rent of Rs. 1, 000 in favour of one Babu Ram.On a portion of these plots stood two Kothas and a pucca well. The lease was given for the purpose of construction of buildings on the land. Babu Ram transferred his lease rights in favour of Ram Singh and Pratap Singh who, in their turn, transferred the rights in favour of Hari Ram and Labh Chand. Labh Chand transferred his rights in favour of Gooal Das. The lessee con structed a rice mill and other pucca con structions on the land and these construc tions still stand.
(2.) AFTER the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force, a notification was published by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act for demarcating the agricultural area in district Saharanpur. In the original proposals issued by the Commissioner, these two plots were not Included in the agricultural area. Res pondents Hari Ram and Gopal Das, there upon, filed objections under S, 4 (3) of the Act before the Demarcation Officer that these two plots should also be in cluded in the agricultural area. The Demarcation Officer referred, the matter to the Additional Commissioner. By order dated January 10, 1966, the Additional Commissioner held that the plots, even though buildings stood thereon, were agri cultural area as contemplated by Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act and directed that they be so demarcated. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. It was urged by the petitioner that, under Section 2 (1) (d), an area would be agricultural area only if buildings had not been erected on it. The Board did not accept this contention and, on September 19, 1966, dismissed the ap peal. The petitioner now challenges these two orders. The case has been ably argued by Shri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and he has also collected much useful material and placed it before the Court. In order to appreciate the argu ments, it is necessary to set out the rele vant provisions of the Act. Section 2 is the definition section and sub- section (1) thereof, which defines "agricultural area", is in these words:- "2(1) 'Agricultural area' as respects any urban area means an area which, with reference to such date as the State Gov ernment may notify in that behalf, iis- (a) in the possession of or held or deem ed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove; (b) held as a grove by or in the per sonal cultivation of a permanent lessee in Avadh; or (c) included in the holding of- (i) a fixed-rate tenant, (ii) an ex-proprietary tenant, (iii) an occupancy tenant, (iv) a tenant holding on special terms In Avadh, (v) a rent-free grantee, (vi) a grantee at a favourable rate of rent, (vii) a hereditary tenant, (viii) a grove-holder, (ix) a sub-tenant referred to In sub section (4) of S. 47 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939; or (x) a non-occupancy tenant of land other than land referred to in sub-s. (3) of Section 30 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and is used by the holder thereof for purposes of agriculture or horticulture: Provided always that land which on the date aforesaid is occupied by buildings not being 'improvements' as defined in S. 3 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and land appurtenant to such buildings shall not be deemed to be agricultural area. (d) held on lease duly executed before the first day of July, 1955, for the pur poses of erecting buildings thereon; or (e) held or occupies by an occupier. "Explanation- 'An area, being part of the holding of a tenant, shall not be deem ed to have ceased to be agricultural area by reason merely that it has not been used, during the seven years preceding the commencement of this Act, for rais ing crops or other agricultural produce". Section 3 provides that the State Gov ernment may, with a view to acquisition under the provisions of the Act of the rights, title and interest of Intermediaries in urban areas, direct, by notification in the official Gazette, that the agricultural area situated in any such area be demar cated. It further provides that, on the publication of the notification, the Demar cation Officer shall made inquiries and shall determine and demarcate the agri cultural area. Section 4 provides for the publication_ of preliminary proposals and for the filing of objections against those proposals. The final demarcation is pro vided for in Section 5. Section 8 pro vides that, after the agricultural area has been demarcated, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that such area shall vest in the State. Section 10 provides for the con sequences of vesting. Section 17 provides for the settlement of certain lands with intermediaries or cultivators as bhumi-dhars. Clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of this sec tion reads:- "17(1) Subject .to the provisions of Sec tions 16 and 18- (a) ........................... (b) all lands in an agricultural area held on lease duly made before the first day of July, 1955, for the purpose of erecting building thereon, shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary, lessee, ............... who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof". Section 19 makes provision for the con ferment of asami rights. Clause (j) there of provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, occupies or held land in an agricultural area as a sub-lessee from a person holding land under a lease re ferred to in Cl. (b) of sub-section fl) of S. 17 shall be deemed to be an asami thereof. Section 20 (1) empowers a per son who has become a bhumidhar under Section 17 (1) (b) to make an application for the ejectment of the asami under Section 19 (i) on the ground that he wants the land for purposes of erecting buildings thereon.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that, if the words of Cl. (d) of Section 2 (1) are literally construed as they stand and it is held that CL (d) in cludes an area which is covered by build ings, then it would result in serious anomalies as well as discrimination. He further contends that such an interpreta tion would be against the object and in tention of the Legislature. It is apparent that it would be doing violence to the ordinary meaning of the expression "agricultural area" to include built- up areas in it .One result of accepting the interpretation put on Clause (d) by the Board of Revenue and supported by the lessees would be that, under Section 17 (1) (b], bhumidhari rights, which are essentially cultivatory rights, will be conferred in respect of an area which is covered by buildings or which may be lying parti and is not under cultivation at all. It will also result in this inconsis tency that whereas, under Clause (c) where admittedly agricultural plots in possession of agricultural tenants are oc cupied by buildings not being improve ments, they will not be included in the agricultural area, whilst, admittedly non-agricultural plots, upon which buildings stand, will be included in the agricul tural area. Lastly, such an interpreta tion will result in discrimination in two ways: First, such areas, on which build ings have been constructed by lessees holding under leases duly executed before July 1, 1955, will become agricultural areas, but areas, on which buildings have been constructed by the zamindar himself or by licensees or by lessees holding otherwise than on lease duly executed before July 1, 1955, will not be includ ed in the agricultural area. Secondly, in the urban areas, the rights of landlords, who have granted similar leases but to whom the Act is not applicable, will re main intact, whilst the rights of the land lords (zamindars), to whom the Act ap plies, will be abolished.;