DURGA PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.