# Bajrangi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 785
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 5015 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bajrangi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50624
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 98 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016, Rule 99 - Collector's permission for
transfer of Scheduled Caste bhumidhar's
land - Explanation to Rule 99 - Clause (d)
of sub-rule (8) mandates that the area of
the land held by the applicant after
transfer must not be reduced to less than
1.26 hectares. Held: The import of the
Explanation appended to Rule 99 is that
even in a case where the area of land held
by the applicant on the date of application
reduces to less than 1.26 hectares after
the transfer, permission may still be
granted in the event that either of the
conditions specified in Clauses (a) to (c) is
fulfilled. The use of "or" between Clauses
(a) to (d) of sub-rule (8) conveys a
disjunctive sense, indicating alternatives,
and the fulfillment of the conditions
specified in any one of the clauses would
be
sufficient
grounds
for
granting
permission under Section 98(1). i.e., even
if one of the conditions under Clauses (a)
to (d) of Rule 99(8) is fulfilled, the nonfulfillment of any other condition would be
of no consequence. (Para 37, 38)
B. In the instant case petitioner belonged
to the Scheduled Caste and was suffering
from a disease. In order to meet the
expenses of medical treatment, he had
taken a loan. To repay the loan and to
fund his medical treatment, he was in
need
of
financial
assistance
and
accordingly sought permission for the
transfer of his bhumidhari land. Collector
rejected the application, purportedly on
the ground that after the proposed
transfer, the remaining area of land held
by
the
petitioner
would
be
0.5930
hectares, i.e., less than 1.26 hectares.
Held: Impugned order was non-speaking
and
does
not
indicate
an
objective
consideration of the conditions under
Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule (8) of Rule
99, which are in the nature of alternatives.
Impugned orders set aside. (Para 64)
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,993 of 51,074. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._

7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
(Computerized Case No.D201718210225)
are hereby quashed.

17. However, quashing of the
impugned orders would not result in revival
of
the
petitioner's
fire
arm
license
automatically. The petitioner may move an
application before the District Magistrate,
Etah alongwith relevant document as well
as acquittal order and certified copy of this
order within two weeks from today. If any
such application is filed before the District
Magistrate, Etah/licensing authority, the
same shall be processed and decided
expeditiously strictly in accordance with
law, within a period of two months from
the date of production of such application.

18. Needless to say, the licensing
authority shall not refuse the arm license on
the ground of the impugned orders, which
has been quashed by this order.

19. With the aforesaid directions, the
present writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 785
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 5015 of 2023

Bajrangi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd. Zubair, Ms. Roshni Ibrahim
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 98 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016, Rule 99 - Collector's permission for
transfer of Scheduled Caste bhumidhar's
land - Explanation to Rule 99 - Clause (d)
of sub-rule (8) mandates that the area of
the land held by the applicant after
transfer must not be reduced to less than
1.26 hectares. Held: The import of the
Explanation appended to Rule 99 is that
even in a case where the area of land held
by the applicant on the date of application
reduces to less than 1.26 hectares after
the transfer, permission may still be
granted in the event that either of the
conditions specified in Clauses (a) to (c) is
fulfilled. The use of "or" between Clauses
(a) to (d) of sub-rule (8) conveys a
disjunctive sense, indicating alternatives,
and the fulfillment of the conditions
specified in any one of the clauses would
be
sufficient
grounds
for
granting
permission under Section 98(1). i.e., even
if one of the conditions under Clauses (a)
to (d) of Rule 99(8) is fulfilled, the nonfulfillment of any other condition would be
of no consequence. (Para 37, 38)
B. In the instant case petitioner belonged
to the Scheduled Caste and was suffering
from a disease. In order to meet the
expenses of medical treatment, he had
taken a loan. To repay the loan and to
fund his medical treatment, he was in
need
of
financial
assistance
and
accordingly sought permission for the
transfer of his bhumidhari land. Collector
rejected the application, purportedly on
the ground that after the proposed
transfer, the remaining area of land held
by
the
petitioner
would
be
0.5930
hectares, i.e., less than 1.26 hectares.
Held: Impugned order was non-speaking
and
does
not
indicate
an
objective
consideration of the conditions under
Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule (8) of Rule
99, which are in the nature of alternatives.
Impugned orders set aside. (Para 64)
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Sitaram Vs St. of U.P. & ors.2022 (155)
RD 178
2. Smt. Omwati Vs Collector, District
Pilibhit & ors.2023 (1) ADJ 280
3. Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.2020 (3) ADJ 358
4. Fakir Mohd. Vs Sita Ram (2002) 1 SCC
741
5. Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Sanjay
Kumar Katwal & anr.(2009) 1 SCC 610
6. G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner,
Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh (2009) 2 SCC 90
7. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Vs
Henderson (1888) 13 AC 595 (HL)
8. S. Sundaram Pillai Vs V.R. Pattabiraman
& ors.(1985) 1 SCC 591
9.
Burmah
Shell
Oil
Storage
and
Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. CTO AIR
1961 SC 315
10. Bihta Cooperative Development Cane
Marketing Union Ltd. Vs Bank of Bihar AIR
1967 SC 389
11. Hiralal Rattanlal Vs St. of U.P. (1973) 1
SCC 216
12. Dattatraya Govind Mahajan Vs St. of
Mah. (1977) 2 SCC 548
13. U.O.I. Vs Mohan Lal Capoor &
ors.(1973) 2 SCC 836
14. Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering
Union (1971) 2 QB 175, 191 : (1971) 1 All ER
1148
15. Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs
Crabtree 1974 ICR 120
16.
Regina
Vs
Immigration
Appeal
Tribunal Ex parte Khan (Mahmud) 1983 QB
790 : (1983) 2 All ER 420
17. Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs U.O.I. (1969)
3 SCC 868
18. Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs St.
of U.P. (1970) 1 SCC 764
19. Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing
Co. of India Ltd. Vs U.O.I. (1976) 2 SCC 981
20. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Masood Ahmed Khan & ors.
21. R. Vs St Pancras Vestry (1890) 24 Q.B.D.
371
22. Associated Provincial Picture Houses,
Ltd. Vs Wednesbury Corp.[1947] 2 All E.R.
680
23.
Padfield
&
ors.Vs
Minister
of
Agriculture,
Fisheries
and
Food
&
ors.[1968] 1 All E.R. 694
24. Breen Vs Amalgamated Engineering
Union & ors.[1971] 2 Q.B. 175
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Roshni Ibrahim, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit
Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present petition seeks to assail
an order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the
respondent
No.
3/Collector/District
Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Fatehpur in
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787
Case No. 00340/2021, Computerized Case
No. C202102000000394 (Bajrangi Vs.
State), under Section 98(1) of the U. P.
Revenue Code, 2006. The order dated
05.07.2021 passed by the respondent No.
2/Commissioner,
Prayagraj
Region,
Prayagraj in revision filed against the
earlier
order,
being
revision
No.
00340/2021,
Computerized
Case
No.
C202102000000394 (Bajrangi Vs. State),
under Section 210 of the U. P. Revenue
Code, 2006,
is
also
sought
to
be
challenged.

3. As per the pleadings and the record
of the writ petition, the petitioner has
claimed himself to be the recorded
bhumidhar with transferable rights over
land bearing Gata No. 3946, area 1.0500
hectares, situate at Village Kondar, Pargana
Muttaur, Tehsil and District Fatehpur.

4. It is sought to be contended that
the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste
and was suffering from a disease and in
order to meet the expenses of medical
treatment, he had taken a loan. It is
submitted that in order to repay the loan
and for the purposes of his medical
treatment he was in need of funds and
accordingly he had sought permission
for transfer of his bhumidhari land by
moving an application dated 20.10.2020
before the Collector in the prescribed
R.C. Form -27.

5. It is pointed out that upon the
aforestated application, a report dated
04.11.2020 was submitted by the Area
Lekhpal indicating therein that since the
transfer was being sought for repayment
of loan amount and for meeting out the
expenses for the treatment of the disease
the petitioner had been suffering from,
there was no objection to the permission
which was being sought for transfer of
the land in question.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that despite the fact that the
petitioner's case for seeking permission
for transfer was fully covered as per the
provisions contained under Section 98 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 20061 read with
Rule 99 of the U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 20162, the Collector rejected the
application by means of an order dated
25.02.2021. It is submitted that the
aforestated order was passed despite
taking into notice the facts stated in the
application and also the report submitted
by the Area Lekhpal indicating therein
that there were no objections to the
permission being sought.

7.

Aggrieved
against
the
aforestated
order,
the
petitioner
preferred
a
revision
before
the
Commissioner, which was also rejected
by an order dated 05.07.2021 reiterating
whatever was stated in the earlier order
passed by the Collector.

8. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that once the petitioner
had duly fulfilled the requisite conditions
for grant of permission for transfer as per
the relevant statutory provisions contained
under Section 98 of the Code, 2006 read
with the provision undrer Rule 99 of the
Rules, 2016 and the report submitted by the
Area Lekhpal after due verification of the
facts was also favourable, there was
absolutely no reason for the application to
have been rejected by the concerned
respondent authority.

9. It is submitted that the order passed
by the respondent No. 3 rejecting the
application and also the revisional order
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed thereagainst by the respondent No.
2, are non-speaking and bereft of reasons. It
is further submitted that the only plausible
reason which may seem to emerge from the
two orders, is that after the proposed
transfer, the remaining area of land held by
the petitioner would be 0.5930 hectares.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the requisite conditions
under which permission of transfer of land
may be granted by the Collector are
provided under Section 98 of the Code,
2006 read with Rule 99 of the Rules, 2016.
It is pointed out that the conditions laid
down therein are in the form of alternatives
and if any one of the conditions is fulfilled,
the necessary permission ought to be
granted.

11. In the case at hand, the petitioner
claims to be suffering from a disease and
was in need of funds for his treatment;
accordingly the condition prescribed under
Clause (b) of sub rule of Rule 99 was
fulfilled. It is further sought to be
contended that the condition prescribed
under Clause (d) of sub rule (8) which
mandates that the area of the land held by
the applicant after transfer must not reduce
to less than 1.26 hectares, has been clarified
by the explanation appended to the Rule
which provides that in a case where the
conditions enumerated in any of the
Clauses (a) to (c) of the Rule, are fulfilled,
the non fulfillment of the condition
enumerated in Clause (d) would not
constitute a bar for grant of permission.

12. Learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State respondents
has fairly submitted that the conditions
specified therein that the area of land held
by the applicant on the date of application,
consequent to the transfer should not
reduce to less than 1.26 hectares, would not
be mandatory in the event the conditions
specified under Clause (a), Clause (b) or
Clause (c) are fulfilled. Learned Additional
Advocate General has referred to the
explanation appended to sub rule (8) to
point out that the position in this regard has
been clarified.

13. The provisions under the Code,
2006 and the Rules, 2016, which would be
relevant for the purposes of the controversy
involved in the present case are being
extracted below:

"98. Restrictions on transfer by
bhumidhars belonging to a Scheduled
Caste.--(1) Without prejudice to the
provisions of this Chapter, no bhumidhar
belonging to a scheduled caste shall have
the right to transfer, by way of sale, gift,
mortgage or lease any land to a person not
belonging to a scheduled caste, except with
the previous permission of the Collector in
writing:

Provided that the permission by
the Collector may be granted only when--

(a) the bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste has no surviving heir
specified in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
section 108 or clause (a) of section 110, as
the case may be; or

(b) the bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste has settled or is ordinarily
residing in the district other than that in
which the land proposed to be transferred is
situate or in any other State for the purpose
of any service or any trade, occupation,
profession or business; or

(c) the Collector is, for the
reasons prescribed, satisfied that it is
necessary to grant the permission for
transfer of land.

(2) For the purposes of granting
permission under this section the Collector
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
may make such inquiry as may be
prescribed.

Rule 99. Collector's permission
for
transfer
of
Scheduled
Caste
bhumidhar's land. (Section 98).-- (1) An
application under section 98 (1) or under
section 98 (1) read with section 107, for
permission to transfer land by way of sale
or gift or for permission to bequeath land
by will, as the case may be, shall be made
by a Bhumidhar with transferable rights
belonging to Scheduled Caste to the
Collector in R.C. Form-27.

(2) An application under section
98 (1), for permission to mortgage his
interest in the land shall be made by a
bhumidhar, belonging to a Scheduled Caste
to the Collector in R.C. Form-28.

(3) An application under section
98 (1), for permission to let out land shall
be made by a bhumidhar belonging to a
Scheduled Caste to the Collector in R.C.
Form-29.

(4) On receipt of an application
under section 98 (1) the Collector shall
make such inquiry as he may, in the
circumstances of the case, deem necessary.
He may also depute an officer not below
the rank of Naib Tahsildar for:

(a) verification of the facts stated
in the application; and

(b) reporting the circumstances in
which permission for transfer is sought.

(5) The inquiry officer referred to
in sub-rule (4) of this rule shall submit the
report in duplicate within the period of
fifteen days, from the date of receiving the
order of such inquiry.

(6) A copy of the report shall be
supplied to the applicant free of charge,
from the office of the Collector where such
report has been submitted.

(7)
The
applicant
may
file
objection against the report submitted by
the inquiry officer within the period of
seven days from the date of receipt of the
copy of the report.

(8) After receiving the report
submitted under sub-rule (3) and the
objection, if any, if the Collector is satisfied
that-

(a) the conditions of clause (a) or
clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 98
are fulfilled; or

(b) the tenure holder or any
member of his family is suffering from any
fatal disease regarding which the certificate
has been issued by any physician or
surgeon specialist in the disease concerned
and the permission for transfer is necessary
to meet out the expenses for the treatment
of such disease; or

(c) the applicant is seeking
permission under section 98(1) of the Code
for the proposed transfer to purchase any
other land from the consideration of such
proposed transfer and the facts in this
regard in the application are supported with
certified copy of a registered agreement to
sell in favour of the applicant; or

(d) the area of land held by the
applicant on the date of application does
not, after such transfer, reduce to less than
1.26 hectares, and

(e) if the permission is being
sought for transfer by sale the consideration
for the transfer of the land is not below the
amount calculated as per the circle rate
fixed by the Collector;

he may grant the permission by
recording the reasons.

Explanation. --For the removal of
doubt it is a hereby clarified that if the
condition enumerated in clause (d) of this
sub-rule is not fulfilled but any condition
enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of this rule
is fulfilled the permission under section
98(1) of the Code may be granted by
Collector.
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(9) An application referred to in
sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) of rule 99 for
permission to mortgage or to let out land,
as the case may be, may be granted by the
Collector on his being satisfied that the
mortgage or letting out, as the case may be,
is not possible in favour of a person
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.

(10) An application referred to in
sub-rule (1) of rule 99 for permission to
bequeath land by will, may be granted by
the Collector on his being satisfied that the
bequeath of the land was not possible in
favour of the person belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

(11) The Collector shall make an
endeavor to dispose of the application
under section 98(1) within the period of
fifteen days from the date of receiving the
report submitted by the inquiry officer and
if the application is not disposed of within
such period the reason for the same shall be
recorded."

14. Section 98 of the Code mandates
that
no
bhumidhar
belonging
to
a
scheduled caste shall have the right to
transfer, by way of sale, gift, mortgage or
lease any land to a person not belonging to
a scheduled caste except with the previous
permission of the Collector in writing.
The previous permission of the Collector
is therefore, a condition precedent before
any bhumidhar of scheduled caste can
seek to transfer his land to a person not
belonging to a scheduled caste. In the
absence of such permission having been
obtained, the transfer would be rendered
void as per Section 104, and would be
subject to the consequences provided
under Section 105.

15. The proviso to Section 98
enumerates the conditions under which
permission
may
be
granted
by
the
Collector, and the same are as follows:

(i) the bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste has no surviving heir
specified in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
section 108 or clause (a) of section 110, as
the case may be; or

(ii) the bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste has settled or is ordinarily
residing in the district other than that in
which the land proposed to be transferred is
situate or in any other State for the purpose
of any service or any trade, occupation,
profession or business; or

(iii) the Collector is, for the
reasons prescribed, satisfied that it is
necessary to grant the permission for
transfer of land.

16. The reasons prescribed, as
referred to under clause (c) of the proviso
to Section 98(1), upon which the Collector
is to record its satisfaction that it is
necessary to grant permission for transfer
of the land, are specified under sub-rule (8)
of Rule 99 of the Rules, 2016, and the same
are as follows:

(i) the conditions of clause (a) or
clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 98
are fulfilled; or

(ii) the tenure holder or any
member of his family is suffering from any
fatal disease regarding which the certificate
has been issued by any physician or
surgeon specialist in the disease concerned
and the permission for transfer is necessary
to meet out the expenses for the treatment
of such disease; or

(iii) the applicant is seeking
permission under section 98(1) of the Code
for the proposed transfer to purchase any
other land from the consideration of such
proposed transfer and the facts in this
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
regard in the application are supported with
certified copy of a registered agreement to
sell in favour of the applicant; or

(iv) the area of land held by the
applicant on the date of application does
not, after such transfer, reduce to less than
1.26 hectares, and

(v) if the permission is being
sought for transfer by sale the consideration
for the transfer of the land is not below the
amount calculated as per the circle rate
fixed by the Collector;

17. The conditions under which
permission may be granted for transfer to a
bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled caste
can thus be summarised as follows:-

(i) in the absence of surviving
heir specified in clause (a) of sub-section
(2) of section 108 or clause (a) of section
110;

(ii) the transferor has settled or is
ordinarily residing in the district other than
that in which the land proposed to be
transferred is situate or in any other State
for the purpose of any service or any trade,
occupation, profession or business;

(iii) for the reasons prescribed
under the Rules, i.e.

(a) the tenure holder or any
member of his family is suffering from any
fatal disease; or

(b) the applicant is seeking
permission for the proposed transfer to
purchase
any
other
land
from
the
consideration of such proposed transfer; or

(c) the area of land held by the
applicant on the date of application does
not, after such transfer, reduce to less than
1.26 hectares, and

(d) if the permission is being
sought for transfer by sale the consideration
is not below the amount calculated as per
the circle rate fixed by the Collector.

18. The explanation to Rule 99
clarifies that in a situation where any
condition enumerated in clause (a) to (c) of
sub-rule (8) of Rule 99 is fulfilled, the
permission may be granted even if the
holding of the bhumidhar (transferor) after
such transfer reduces to less than 1.26
hectares.

19. The procedure for obtaining
permission for transfer under Section 98 is
provided for under Rule 99 of the Rules,
2016 and as per sub-rule (3) thereof an
application seeking permission to transfer
land by way of sale or gift or for
permission to bequeath land by will, as the
case may be, is to be made by a bhumidhar
with transferable rights belonging to
scheduled caste to the Collector in RCForm 27. Upon receipt of such an
application, the Collector under sub-rule
(4) shall make an enquiry as he may, in the
circumstances of the case deem necessary.
For the purpose he may depute an officer
not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar for :
(a) verification of the facts stated in the
application;
and
(b)
reporting
the
circumstances in which permission for
transfer is sought. Thereafter, under subrule (5), the inquiry officer shall submit the
report in duplicate within a period of 15
days from the date of receiving the order of
such enquiry. The copy of the report is to
be supplied to the applicant under sub-rule
(6) whereupon the applicant may file
objections against the report within a
period of seven days and thereafter the
Collector upon being satisfied that any of
the conditions under sub-rules (8)(a) to (d),
and sub-rule (8)(e) of Rule 99, are fulfilled,
he may grant permission after recording
reasons.

20. In a case where the application
has been made as per the prescribed
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure and upon due enquiry as
provided under the Rules, 2016 either of
the aforestated conditions are held to be
satisfied, the permission is required to be
granted for transfer under Section 98.

21. The aforementioned legal position
with regard to the interpretation of the
provisions contained under Section 98 of the
Code, 2006 and Rule 99 of the Rules, 2016
which relate to the restrictions on transfer by
bhumidhars belonging to a Scheduled Caste
and the manner in which permission may be
granted for the purpose by the Collector,
were subject matter of consideration in recent
decisions of this Court in Sitaram vs State of
U.P. and others and Smt. Omwati Vs.
Collector District Pilibhit And 2 Others
which has been relied upon by counsel for
both the parties.

22. The only plausible reason that
may seem to emerge from the two orders,
which are subject matter of the present writ
petition, is that after the proposed transfer
the remaining area of land held by the
petitioner would reduce to 0.5930 hectare.
This would mean that the area of land
remaining with the petitioner would reduce
to less than 1.26 hectares and would be hit
by the injunctive condition under Clause
(d) of sub rule (8) of Rule 99.

23. In this regard, it may be noticed
that in terms of sub rule (8) of Rule 99, the
Collector
is
required
to
record
his
satisfaction with regard to the fulfillment of
conditions contained under Clauses (a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e). It may further be noticed
that Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), are
connected, by the word 'or', and Clause (e)
is connected by using the word 'and'.

24. The conjunctions 'and' and 'or' are
two of the elemental words in the English
Language - 'and' combines items while 'or'
creates alternatives.

25.

In
Maxwell
on
The
Interpretation of Statutes, it has been
observed as follows:

"in ordinary usage, 'and' is
conjunctive and 'or' disjunctive".

26. It was held by this Court in Smt.
Krishna Shri Gupta v. State of U.P. and
Others that in the context of statutory
interpretation, the word 'or' has generally
been construed as being disjunctive. The
relevant observations made in the judgment
are as follows:

"25. In logic, mathematics and in
the context of statutory interpretation, the
word "or" has generally been construed as
being disjunctive i.e. connective that marks
alternatives. It has been used to connect
words, phrases or classes representing
alternatives."

27. In Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram,
it was held that the word 'or' is
normally disjunctive. The use of the
word 'or' in a statute manifests the
legislative intent of the alternatives
prescribed under law.

28. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev
University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
and another, it was held that the use of 'or'
between two qualifications conveyed a
disjunctive sense indicating alternatives
and
possession
of
either
of
the
qualifications
would be
held
to
be
sufficient. It was reiterated that the word
'or' is normally used in the disjunctive
sense
unless
the
context
warrants
otherwise. The relevant extract from the
judgment is as follows :-
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793

"9. The prescription of eligibility
criteria is very clear. It requires a
Bachelor's degree with not less than 45%
marks
or
a
Master's
degree.
The
University's contention that the candidate
must have a Bachelor's degree and only if
his marks are less than 45% in the
Bachelor's degree course, was the Master's
degree to be considered, would mean that
the word "or" should be substituted by the
words "in the event of the candidate not
having 45% marks in the Bachelor's
degree". Reading such words into the
provision is impermissible. The word "or"
is
disjunctive.
No
doubt,
in
some
exceptional circumstances, the word "or"
has been read as conjunctive as meaning
"and", where the context warranted it. But
the word "or" cannot obviously be read as
referring to a conditional alternative, when
such condition is not specified. In view of
the provision relating to eligibility being
unambiguous and using the word "or", it is
clear that a Master's degree without a
Bachelor's degree will satisfy the eligibility
requirement."

29. The interpretation of the word 'or'
in the context of an exemption notification
issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948
came up for consideration in the case of
G.P.
Ceramics
(P)
Ltd.
Vs.
Commissioner,
Trade
Tax,
Uttar
Pradesh, and it was held that the three
contingencies provided for under the
notification which were connected by the
word 'or', were disjunctive in nature. It was
stated thus :-

"24. The eligibility criteria is
contained in the notification. Sub-clause
(ii) of Clause 2-B of the notification
envisages three contingencies i.e. (i) the
unit is established on land or building or
both owned by the dealer; or (ii) the unit is
established on land or building or both
taken on lease for a period of not less than
15 years; or (iii) the unit is established on
land or building or both allotted to such
unit by the State or the Central Government
or any government company or any
corporation owned or controlled by the
Central or the State Government.

xxx

27. The eligibility criteria are laid
down in the notification, which, as noticed
hereinbefore,
provide
for
three
contingencies. They are disjunctive in
nature and not conjunctive..."

30. In this regard, reference may also
be had to the observations made by Lord
Halsbury in Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board vs. Henderson, which are as
follows :-

"......I know no authority for such
a proceeding unless the context makes the
necessary meaning of "or" "and" as in some
instances it does; but I believe it is wholly
unexampled so to read it when doing so
will upon one construction entirely alter the
meaning of the sentence unless some other
part of the same statute or the clear
intention of it requires that to be done...."

31. It would therefore be seen that the
meaning of the word 'or' as a tool of
statutory construction has been subject
matter of consideration in a number of
decisions, and it has been consistently held
that the word 'or' is normally disjunctive
and its use in a statute manifests the
legislative
intent
of
the
alternatives
prescribed under law.

32. In the instant case the use of the
word 'or' as a connective between Clauses
(a), (b), (c) and (d), is indicative of the
disjunctive
sense
marking
the
four
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alternative conditions. It would follow as a
consequence that in the event either of the
conditions under Clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d)
are fulfilled, the same would have to be
held
sufficient
for
the
purposes
of
recording of satisfaction by the Collector
for grant of approval.

33. The condition under Clause (d),
which is in the nature of an injunctive
clause, in terms whereof it is provided that
area of land held by the applicant on the
date of the application, should not after
transfer, reduce to less than 1.26 hectares,
has been clarified by the explanation which
is appended to sub rule (8).

34. The intent, purpose and effect of
an Explanation appended to a statutory
provision was considered in S. Sundaram
Pillai Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman and others.
It was held that the Explanation is meant to
explain or clarify certain ambiguities in the
provision. Referring to earlier decisions in
Burmah
Shell
Oil
Storage
and
Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. CTO,
Bihta Cooperative Development Cane
Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar,
Hiralal Rattanlal Vs. State of U.P.,
Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra and also the principles laid
down in Sarathi in Interpretation of
Statutes, Swarup in Legislation and
Interpretation
and
Bindra
in
Interpretation of Statutes, the object of an
Explanation to a statutory provision was
elaborated, and it was observed as follows:

"53. Thus, from a conspectus of
the authorities referred to above, it is
manifest that the object of an Explanation
to a statutory provision is--

"(a) to explain the meaning and
intendment of the Act itself,

(b) where there is any obscurity
or vagueness in the main enactment, to
clarify the same so as to make it consistent
with the dominant object which it seems to
subserve,

(c) to provide an additional
support to the dominant object of the Act in
order
to
make
it
meaningful
and
purposeful,

(d) an Explanation cannot in any
way interfere with or change the enactment
or any part thereof but where some gap is
left which is relevant for the purpose of the
Explanation, in order to suppress the
mischief and advance the object of the Act
it can help or assist the Court in
interpreting the true purport and intendment
of the enactment, and

(e) it cannot, however, take away
a statutory right with which any person
under a statute has been clothed or set at
naught the working of an Act by becoming
an hindrance in the interpretation of the
same."

35. The effect and intendment of an
explanation is to be determined by its own
words. In certain cases an explanation may
be introduced ex abundanti cautela i.e. by
way of abundant caution in order to clear
any possible ambiguities surrounding the
meaning of the statutory provision and to
place what the legislature considers to be
the true meaning beyond controversy or
doubt.

36. The Explanation appended to
sub rule (8) provides that if the
condition enumerated in Clause (d) of
the sub rule is not fulfilled but any of
the conditions enumerated in Clauses
(a) to (c) of the sub rule are fulfilled,
the permission under Section 98(1) may
be granted.
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795

37. The import of the Explanation
would therefore be that even in a case
where the area of land held by the applicant
on the date of application, reduces to less
than 1.26 hectares after the transfer,
permission may still be granted in the event
either of the conditions specified in Clauses
(a) to (c) is fulfilled.

38. The use of 'or' between Clauses
(a) to (d) of sub rule (8), as noticed earlier,
conveys a disjunctive sense indicating
alternatives
and
fulfillment
of
the
conditions specified in either of the clauses
would be a sufficient ground on the basis of
which permission under Section 98(1) may
be granted.

39. It would be relevant to underscore
that while fulfillment of either of the
conditions specified under Clauses (a) to
(d), aforesaid, would be 'sufficient', none of
these conditions can be held to be
'necessary'. To put it in other words, in a
case where one of the conditions under
Clauses (a) to (d) are fulfilled, nonfulfillment of any other condition would be
of no consequence.

40. In logic and mathematics,
'necessity' and 'sufficiency' are terms used
to describe a conditional or implicational
relationship between two statements. In
general, a 'necessary condition' is one that
must be present in order for the other
condition to occur, while a 'sufficient
condition' is one that produces the said
condition.

41. It can therefore be said that a
'necessary condition' is a condition that must
be present for an event to occur whereas a
'sufficient condition' is a condition or set of
conditions that will produce the event.

42. A 'sufficient condition' would on its
own produce the result but its absence cannot
lead to an inference that the result would not
be produced. A causal fallacy occurs when
one assumes that a sufficient condition is
necessary for the event to occur.

43. Applying the aforestated principles,
in the context of sub rule (8), the conditions
specified in each of the Clauses (a) to (d),
would have to be held sufficient, though
neither of them is necessary.

44. The Explanation appended to sub
rule (8) seeks to clarify the position that the
non-fulfillment of the condition with regard
to the requirement that area of land held by
the applicant consequent to the transfer does
not reduce to less than 1.26 hectares, as
provided under Clause (d), would not create a
bar in the grant of permission under Section
98(1), in the event any of the conditions
enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) is fulfilled.

45. On the question of the effect of nondisclosure of reasons in the orders impugned,
it would be necessary to state that the duty to
give reasons and the necessity of passing a
speaking order by an authority exercising
quasi-judicial powers, is fairly well settled. It
has been consistently held that an order
passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even a
administrative authority affecting the rights of
parties, must be a 'speaking order' and it must
not be like the 'inscrutable face of a sphinx'.

46. Emphasizing on the necessity to
give
reasons
while
exercising
administrative or quasi-judicial functions, it
was observed in Union of India Vs.
Mohan Lal Capoor and Others observed
as follows:

"28 .... Reasons are the links
between the materials on which certain
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions. They disclose how the mind is
applied to the subject matter for a decision
whether it is purely administrative or quasijudicial. They should reveal a rationale
nexus between the facts considered and
conclusions reached. Only in this way can
opinion or decisions recorded to be shown
to be manifestly just and reasonable."

47. It would be apposite to refer to the
observations made by Lord Denning M.R.,
in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering
Union, which are as follows:

"the giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration."

48. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley)
Ltd. Vs. Crabtree, Sir Donaldson has
observed that "failure to give reasons
amounts to a denial of justice".

49. In Regina Vs. Immigration
Appeal
Tribunal
Ex
parte
Khan
(Mahmud),
Lord
Lane,
C.J.
has
observed:

"A party appearing before a
tribunal is entitled to know, either expressly
stated by the tribunal or inferentially stated,
what it is to which the tribunal is
addressing its mind."

50. The Law Commission in the
Fourteenth Report relating to reform in
Judicial Administration made the following
recommendations:

"In the case of administrative
decisions provision should be made that
they should be accompanied by reasons.
The reasons will make it possible to test
the validity of these decisions by the
machinery of appropriate writs."

51. In Travancore Rayon Ltd. v.
Union of India it has been observed:

"The court insists upon disclosure
of reasons in support of the order on two
grounds : one, that the party aggrieved in a
proceeding before the High Court or this
Court has the opportunity to demonstrate
that the reasons which persuaded the
authority to reject his case were erroneous;
the other, that the obligation to record
reasons operates as a deterrent against
possible arbitrary action by the executive
authority invested with the judicial power."

52. Dealing with the question as to
whether it was incumbent on the authority
exercising quasi-judicial or administrative
powers to give any reasons for its decision,
it was observed in Mahabir Prasad
Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P., as
follows:

"The practice of the executive
authority
dismissing
statutory
appeals
against orders which prima facie seriously
prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party
without giving reasons is a negation of the
rule of law.

"Recording of reasons in support
of a decision on a disputed claim by a
quasi-judicial authority ensures that the
decision is reached according to law and is
not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or
reached
on
grounds
of
policy
or
expediency. A party to the dispute is
ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on
which the authority has rejected his claim.
If the order is subject to appeal, the
necessity to record reasons is greater, for
without recorded reasons the appellate
authority has no material on which it may
determine whether the facts were properly
ascertained, the relevant law was correctly
applied and the decision was just."
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797

53. In Siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v.
Union of India while dealing with the
exercise of an appellate power by the
Central
Government
under
the
Sea
Customs Act, 1878, it was stated thus:

"It is now settled law that where
an authority makes an order in exercise of a
quasi-judicial function, it must record its
reasons in support of the order it makes.
Every
quasi-judicial
order
must
be
supported by reasons..."

54. Summarizing the legal position
with regard to the necessity to give reasons
and pass a speaking order while exercising
quasi-judicial functions in the case of
Kranti Associates Private Limited And
Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan And
Others, it was held as follows:

"(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power.

(e)
Reasons
reassure
that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f)
Reasons
have
virtually
become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making
process
as
observing
principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process
of judicial review by superior Courts.