H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court has by his order dated 26-5-78 referred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for hearing by a Division Bench. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh are that respondent No. 1 Samar Singh Intermediate College, Jalaun, which prepares candidates for appearing at the High School and Intermediate examinations conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. was served with a notice under section 10(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to declare 92.01 acres of land held by it as surplus. The respondent filed an objection claiming that as it was an Intermediate College imparting education in agriculture to its students in High School classes, it was, as provided in section 5(2)(c) outside the purview of section 5(1) of the Act. Accordingly, neither any ceiling area applicable to it could be determined, nor could any declaration under the Act that it held any surplus land be made. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection and declared 92.01 acres of land belonging to the respondent as surplus. In appeal, the Dis trict Judge Jalaun held that in view of the provisions contained in section 5 (2) (c) viz. that nothing in sub-section (1) of section 5 shall apply to land held by an Intermediate College imparting education in agriculture, it was not open to the prescribed authority to determine the ceiling area applicable to the objector and to declare any land belonging to it as surplus. Consequently, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority declaring 92.01 acres of objector's land as surplus. Being aggrieved, the State filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and claimed that the appellate authority com mitted manifest error in holding that the respondent was, in view of the provisions of section 5(2) (c) exempt from operation of section 5 (1) of the Act. When the petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, counsel appearing for the State relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Kashi Farm Nehru Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State (1977 R.D. 185 = 1977 A.W.C. 214), wherein it has been held that section 5(2)(c) does not exempt an Intermediate College, imparting education in agriculture upto Class VIII from operation of section 5(1) of the Act, and contended that as in this case the objector did not import education in Agriculture to students appearing in Board's Intermediate Examination, it was not exempt from the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Prescribed Authority was well within its jurisdiction in determining the ceiling area applicable to the objector and declaring 92.01 acres of land belonging to it as surplus. The learned Judge pointed out that in Kashi Farm Nehru Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya's case (supra), the institution did not impart education in agriculture to students who were to appear either in the High School or in the Intermediate examina tion conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. In the instant case, the respondent which is an Intermediate College did impart education in agriculture to students whom it prepared for appearing in the High School examination conducted by the Board of High School and Inter mediate Education. He was accordingly, inclined to hold that the objector was, as contemplated by section 5(2) of the Act, an intermediate college imparting education in agriculture and that the facts of instant case were distinguishable from those of Kashi Farm Nehru Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya's cane, (supra). However, in the view which he was inclined to take and considering the importance of the question involved, he thought that the case should be decided by a Division Bench. Answer to the problem in this petition depends upon the correct inter pretation of section 5(2)(c) of the Act, which puts certain classes of persons mentioned therein outside the purview of section 5(1) of the Act. Relevant portion of section 5(2) of the Act reads thus:- "5(2). Nothing in sub-section a) shall apply to land held by a follow ing classes of persons, namely:- (a) ........................... (b) ........................... (c) an intermediate or degree college imparting education in agriculture or a post graduate college; (d) ........................... (e) ........................... According to section 3(10) of the Act, unless the context otherwise requires, an intermediate college means a college recognised as such by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. (emphasis supplied). In order to understand as to what is meant by an "Intermediate college re cognised as such by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education." We have to refer to the provisions contained in Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Intermediate Act) whereunder a Board of High School and Intermediate Education has been constituted for regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the State and for prescribing courses of studies therefor. Section 7(4) of the Intermediate Act enables the Board, which conducts two public examinations viz. High School examination and Intermediate examination, to recognised institutions for the purposes of such examinations. The word "recognition-has been defined in clause 2(d) of the Intermediate Act as meaning recognition for the purposes of preparing candidates for Board's examination. Use of the words "recognised as such" in section 3(10) of the Act is significant. It, in our opinion, is intended to emphasise the fact that an institution is to be treated to be a college only for the purpose for which it has been so recog nised by the Board and not for any other purpose. Chapter I of the Regulations framed by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education lays down that "college" means an educational institution preparing cnndidates for Intermediate Examination of the Board and recognised by the Board for such purpose. Similarly, "High School-has been defined as meaning "an educational institution preparing candi dates for High School examination of the Roard and recognised by the Board for such a purpose.'' Whereas, the Head of the College has been designated as "Principal" that of a High School has been designated as a "Head Master". Accordingly an institution recognised by the Board for preparing candidates for Intermediate examination will be "an intermediate college'- and the recog nised for preparing candidates for High School examination, is a "High School". If an institution has been recognised for preparing candidates for both High School and Intermediate examination of the Board. Such an institution will be both "a college" and "a High School" as defined in the Regulations. It may be that in common parlance such an institution which is both "a High School" and "a college" is called "college" and the Head of such an institution; who is both a principal and a Head Master is generally called "Principal" but then such an institution can be said to be a college only for purposes of preparing candidates for the Intermediate Examination of the Board. Chapter VII of the Regulations deals with recognition of institution by the Board. Regulation 5 thereof lays down that the application for recognition should, amongst other things, mention the examination or examinations for which it desires recognition as also the subject or subjects in which it under takes to provide instruction. After an application for recognition is made the inspecting authority has to, as provided in regulations 6 and 7 makes its recommendation on the question as to whether and in what subjects or on what condition the institution may be recognised. After the inspecting authority has made Its recommendation, the Board has to act in accordance with Regulation No. 9 which runs thus:- "If satisfied that the institution is deserving of recognition, the Board shall direct the Secretary to enter its name upon a list of recognised institutions to be kept by him and the Secretary shall inform the insti tution and the Inspector/Inspectors concerned in which subjects, on what conditions and for what examination it has been recognised." This, in our opinion, clearly indicates that an institution is recognised by the Board not only for preparing candidates to appear at its examination but also for providing instruction to them in the subjects approved of by it. Accordingly an institution preparing candidates for appearing at Board's intermediate examination instruction in subjects approved of by the Board and not in relation to the subjects for which it has not been so approved. This becomes further clear by Regulation 10 which reads as follows:- "Where an institution desires to add to the subjects of instruction in respect of which recognition has been granted, the procedure pres cribed "by the foregoing regulation shall as far as possible may be followed: Accordingly we are of opinion that the Intermediate Act and the Regu lations framed thereunder contemplates recognition of an institution either as. High School or Intermediate College only for providing instructions to candidates intending to appear in Board's examination, in the subjects approv ed of by the Board and not in relation to the subject which it has not been so approved by it. In the context the expression "Intermediate College imparting education in agriculture" as used in seotion 5(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act has got to be interpreted as meaning an institution recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education for imparting education in agriculture to candidates whom it prepares for appearing at Intermediate examination. In the instant case, the respondent institution has not been recognised by the Board for imparting instruction in Agriculture to the candidates whom it prepares for appearing at Board's Intermediate examination. It is accordingly not an intermediate cellege as contemplated by section 5 (2) (o) of the Act and does not fall outside the purview of section 5 (I) of the Act. The view which we are taking is fortified by the fact that under sub section (2) of section 5 (1), a High School which imparts education in agriculture has not been exempted from the provision of section 5 (I) of the Act. As stated in the objects and reason for introducing amendments in the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, published in the U. P. Gazette dated 5.7.74, one of the reasons for exempting the institution mentioned in clause (o) of sub-section (2) from operation of section 5 (U of the Act was to enable the agricultural colleges to impart education in a satisfactory manner. By not exempting High Schools imparting instruction in agriculture, from the provisions of section 5 (I) of the Act, the legislature seems to recognise that it is not necessary for such institutions to possess agricultural land in excess of ceiling area applicable to them for imparting instructions in a satisfactory manner in agriculture. Apparently, agricultural land is not required for imparting education in any other subjects. In case section 5 (2)(c) of the Act is interpreted in the manner as canvassed by learned counsel for the Respondent, it will mean that even though a High School which is recognised for imparting education in agriculture does not fall out side the purview of scotion 5 (1) of Act, it will fall outside its purview the moment it is recognised by the Board for preparing candidates for its intermediate examination even if it be in subjects other than agriculture and even though it does not need any extra land for the purpose. We see no justification for discriminating between two intermediate colleges neither of whom impart education in agriculture to the candidates preparing to appear at Board's Intermediate Examination merely on the ground that one of such institutions imparts instruction in agriculture at the High School stage for which it does not need any extra land. In our opinion, the section should not be interpreted in a manner so as to create such an anomaly. It was argued that even though a post-graduate degree college may not be imparting education in agriculture, yet it has been exempted from provisions of section 5 (1)of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no reason to think that the legislature did not intend a similar exemption for an inter mediate college merely because it did not impart instruction in agriculture to candidates appearing at Board's Intermediate provided all other conditions mentioned in sub-clasue (c) of section 5 (2) of the Act were fulfilled. We are unable to accept the submission. The legislature has for certain reasons placed the degree colleges imparting education in post-graduate courses on par with Universities and other bodies which are exempt from the applic ability of section 5 (1) of the Act. It has, for purposes of exemption from the provision of section 5 (1), chosen to place other degree and intermediate colleges in a different category and has exempted them from the provision of section 5 (1) of the Act only in a case they imparted education in agriculture in their capacity either as intermediate college or as degree college. Nothing has been brought out to show that such a classification made by the legislature is either irrational or without any basis. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of opinion that the respondent institution which had not been recognised by the Board for imparting education in agriculture to candidates whom it prepared for appearing in Board's intermediate examination it was not an intermediate, college of the type contemplated by clause (c) of section 5 (2) of the Act and as such the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Act applied to it with full force. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by, the District Judge Jalaun dated 2.12.1975 in Ceiling Appeal No. 355 of 1975 is set aside and that passed by the Prescribed Authority on 13.3.1975 is restored. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.;