# Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher Secondry School v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75527 of 2011
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dayanand-sury-englo-sanskrat-higher-secondry-school-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42111
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952-Section
15 A-Cancellation of Patta-granted to a
recognized
institution
Intermediate
College-on
complaint
collector
canceled the Patta for area of 24.30
acre-argument
regarding
legal
definition of person includes 'Company'
a juristic person also-held-scheme of
Bhudan Act postulates distribution of
land only to natural person lower caste
downtrodden neighbors by the land
owner- "person" be interpreted in
narrower sense and not in broader or
legal sense-order impugned perfectly
justified-warrants no interference by
Writ Court.

Held: Para 30

In view of above, I am of the opinion
that the meaning of the word 'person'
used in Section 14 of the Act has to be
construed in a narrower sense in the
context of the Bhoodan scheme which
envisaged for giving land to the tillers
of the soil excluding all juristic persons
from its ambit.
Case law discussed:
1986 ALJ 645; 2003 (95) RD 278; 2003 (95)
RD 320; 2002 (93) RD 13; 1988 RD 363
(SC)

## Text

1 All] Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher Secondry School V. State of U.P. and others

249
decisions as also the fact that petitioners
are ready to pay the entire amount of
Management's contribution along with
interest, this writ petition is allowed in
the same terms and conditions as
contained in judgment dated 06.09.2006,
Smt. Shanti Solanki (supra). If the
petitioners
deposit
Management's
contribution together with interest within
a period of six weeks from today, the
respondents shall proceed to extend
benefit of Government Order dated
26.07.2001 to the petitioners as well. The
aforesaid exercise will be completed
within three months from the date of
such deposit and production of a certified
copy of this order. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75527 of 2011

Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher
Secondary School

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.D. Chauhan
Sri Rajesh Kumar (S.C.)

U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952-Section
15 A-Cancellation of Patta-granted to a
recognized
institution
Intermediate
College-on
complaint
collector
canceled the Patta for area of 24.30
acre-argument
regarding
legal
definition of person includes 'Company'
a juristic person also-held-scheme of
Bhudan Act postulates distribution of
land only to natural person lower caste
downtrodden neighbors by the land
owner- "person" be interpreted in
narrower sense and not in broader or
legal sense-order impugned perfectly
justified-warrants no interference by
Writ Court.

Held: Para 30

In view of above, I am of the opinion
that the meaning of the word 'person'
used in Section 14 of the Act has to be
construed in a narrower sense in the
context of the Bhoodan scheme which
envisaged for giving land to the tillers
of the soil excluding all juristic persons
from its ambit.
Case law discussed:
1986 ALJ 645; 2003 (95) RD 278; 2003 (95)
RD 320; 2002 (93) RD 13; 1988 RD 363
(SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. In this writ petition the question
which surfaces for consideration is
whether the petitioner was eligible for
allotment of land under the scheme of
the Bhoodan Yagna and the provisions
of Section 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as
Act) and if not whether allotment made
in favour of the petitioner was liable to
be cancelled in exercise of powers under
Section 15-A of the Act.

2. Admitted facts are that the
petitioner is an institution recognized
under the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 and is imparting education
including the subject of agriculture.
Petitioner by the very nature of its
activity is not an agriculturist and is not
earning livelihood through agriculture.
Nonetheless, petitioner was allotted
various plots of land, 16 in number
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

having a total area of 24.30 acre situate
in village Bhadua, Pargana Bharthana,
Tehsil and District Etah, under Section
14 of the Act.

3. On a complaint made by one
Rookampal Singh, that the land was
illegally allotted to the petitioner under
the Act, the Up Zila Adhikari submitted
a report dated 3.7.06. On the report Case
No. 7 of 2007 under Section 15-A of the
Act was registered on 29.11.2006
against
the
petitioner
for
the
cancellation of the allotment of the
aforesaid plots.

4. After notice was issued to the
petitioner and an objection was filed by
it and on inquiry in respect whereof
report was submitted by the Up Zila
Adhikar on 1.8.08, the Collector vide
impugned
order
dated
21.10.11
cancelled the allotment made in favour
of the petitioner inter alia on the ground
that the petitioner was not entitle to
allotment of
any land
under the
Bhoodan Scheme and the provisions of
the Act. The petitioner is not a landless
agricultural labourer and that it had
about 10 hectares of land in its name at
the relevant time.

5. I have heard Sri P.N. Saxena,
Senior
Advocate,
assisted
by
Sri
Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents.

6. Sri Saxena has advanced two
arguments in order to assail the
impugned order passed by the Collector.
First the petitioner is a 'person' and is
therefore,
eligible
for
allotment.
Secondly, the provision of Section 15-A
of the Act which was introduced by U.P.
Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act,
1975 cannot be applied retrospectively
in respect of allotments made prior to it
so as to cancel the allotment.

7. It is true that initially there was
no provision under the Act authorizing
any authority or the Collector to cancel
any grant made under the Act. However,
later on it came to the notice of the
government that certain undeserving
persons have obtained grant of lands
under
the
Act
either
by
misrepresentation or playing fraud or
otherwise.
Therefore,
it
was
felt
desirable to invest the Collector with the
power
to
cancel
the
grants
obtained/received by misrepresentation
or fraud or where it is found that the
grant has been made to ineligible
persons. Thus, Section 15-A of the Act
was introduced by U.P. Act 10 of 1975
w.e.f. 21.1.75.

15-A.
Cancellation
of
certain
grants-(1) The Collector may of his own
motion and shall on the report of the
committee or on the application of any
person aggrieved by the grant of any
land made under Section 14, whether
before or after the commencement of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Bhoodan
Yagna
(Amendment) Act, 1975, inquire into
such grant, and if he is satisfied that the
grant was irregular or was obtained by
the grantee by misrepresentation or
fraud, he may-

(i) cancel the grant, and on such
cancellation, notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 14 or in any other
law for the time being in force, the
rights, title and interest of the grantee
or any person claiming through him in
1 All] Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher Secondry School V. State of U.P. and others

251
such land shall cease, and the land shall
revert to the committee; and

(ii) direct delivery of possession of
such land to the committee after
ejectment of every person holding or
retaining possession thereof, and may
for that purpose use or cause to be used
such force as may be necessary.

(2) Notice of every proceeding
under sub-section (1) shall be given to
the committee, and any representation
made by the committee in relation
thereto shall be taken into consideration
by the Collector.

(3) No order shall be passed under
sub-section (1) except after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the
grantee or any person known to the
Collector to be claiming under him.

(4) The order of the Collector
passed under sub-section (1) shall be
final and conclusive.

8. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provision establishes that it is applicable
to grant of land made under Section 14
of the Act whether before or after the
commencement of U. P. Bhoodan
Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975. In view
of the clear and unambiguous language
of the aforesaid provision, Collector has
been authorized to cancel the grant
whether made earlier to the introduction
of
Section
15-A
of
the
Act
or
subsequent to it.

9. Accordingly, Section 15-A of
the Act is applicable even to the grants
made prior to the enforcement of U.P.
Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act,
1975. In view of the aforesaid, I am of
the opinion that Collector is vested with
the power to cancel any grant made
under Section 14 of the Act irrespective
of the time when it was made.

10. Section 14 of the Act
empowers
the
Bhoodan
Yagna
Committee for Uttar Pradesh, a body
corporate having a perpetual succession
(hereinafter referred as Committee)
established
and
constituted
under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to grant
lands vested in it to the "landless
persons"
now
replaced
by
word
"landless agricultural labourers" vide
U.P. Act No.10 of 1975 with the
approval of the State Government.

11. In Matoley Vs. State of U.P.
and another 1986 ALJ 645 a Division
Bench of this Court held that "in order
to find whether a particular grant made
in favour of a person under the
provisions of Bhoodan Yagna Act is
regular or not, the provisions of the Act
as they stood at the time of making of
the grant have to be looked into." The
grant made to a person fulfilling
conditions required at the relevant time,
cannot be cancelled on account of
introduction of new conditions in the
Act subsequently.

12. The aforesaid decision has
been followed by this court in the Case
of Bhagwati Prasad and others Vs.
Additional Collector 2003 (95) RD
278 and Ram Swarup Vs. Collector,
Fatehpur and others 2003 (95) RD
320.

13.

At
the
relevant
time,
committee was authorized to make
grants in favour of "landless persons."
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

14. The primary question which
falls for consideration therefore, is
whether the petitioner as an Institution
was a 'person' eligible for allotment of
land under the Act.

15. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned
counsel for the petitioner on the strength
of the definition of the person contained
in the General Clauses Act/ U.P.
General Clauses Act and on the basis of
illustrations of the U.P. Imposition of
Land Holdings Act, 1953 and the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 contended that
the meaning of the 'person' has to be
construed in a wider sense so as to
include a juristic person and as such
petitioner was entitle to receive grant
under the Act.

16. The illustrations cited by the
counsel for the petitioner to support his
argument that the word 'person' in the
Act refers to a legal person or that it
include within its fold even a juristic
person cannot be accepted as under
different Acts different meanings have
been assigned to the word 'person'. As
for example The Citizenship Act, 1955
in Section 2(f) defines the 'person' so as
not
to
include
any
company
or
association or body of individuals.
Similarly according to Section 2(g) of
the Representation of People Act, 1950
person does not include a body of
persons. Therefore, the definition of a
'person' in one Act cannot be straight
away applied to another Acts as it may
carry a different meaning. Accordingly,
the definition or the meaning assigned
to the word 'person' either under the
U.P. Imposition of Holdings Act, 1953
or under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
cannot be imported and applied in
context with the present Act.

17. The word 'person' has not been
defined in the Act.

In general usage, a human being is
a person which usually refers to a
natural person.

According
to
Chambers
12th
Century Discretionary person is an
individual; a living soul; a human being.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary
(Indian Edition) defines 'person' as a
human being regarded as an individual.

Usually, the word 'person' canotes a
natural person, a human being who has
the capacity for rights and duties.

This is a narrower and a simple
dictionary meaning of the word 'person.'

18. Legally the word 'person'
includes both a natural person and an
artificial person that is an individual
who is a citizen of India, a company, or
a body of individuals and includes even
the
government
departments,
organizations established or constituted
by
government,
local
authority,
cooperative societies or any other
society under the Societies Registrations
Act, a firm, a Hindu Undivided Family
and every artificial judicial person.

19. Section 3(42) of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 defines the 'person' in
a wider legal sense and provides that
person shall include any company or
artificial,
or
body
of
individuals,
whether incorporated or not.

20. A similar and identical
definition of a person exists under
1 All] Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat Higher Secondry School V. State of U.P. and others

253
Section 4(33) of the U.P. General
Clauses Act, 1994.

21. Section 4-A(1) of the General
Clauses Act provides that definitions
given in Section 3 of the said Act shall
apply to all Indian Laws unless there is
anything repugnant in the subject or
context. In other words, the definitions
contained in the General Clauses Act,
1897 are applicable generally unless a
contrary
intention
or
a
different
meaning in context thereto is provided
in a particular enactment.

22. Similarly Section 4-A of the
U.P. General Clauses Act provides that
the definitions given in the said Act
shall apply unless the context otherwise
require.

23. In view of above provisions of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 and U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1994 though
ordinarily the definitions contained in
the aforesaid Acts would be applicable
but where the Act which necessitates the
interpretation
provides
a
different
meaning either specifically or impliedly
the meaning so assigned in the Act shall
be followed.

24. This court in the case of Yog
Sansthan Vs. Collector, Moradabad
and others 2002 (93) RD 13 in
considering the meaning of the word
'person' for the purposes of allotment of
land for housing sites under Section
122-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R., Act 1950
concluded that the definition of the
'person' given in U.P. General Clauses
Act, 1904 cannot be applied as the word
'person' used in context refers only to a
natural person.

25. Now before applying the
definition of the 'person' contained in
the above two Acts it is relevant and
important to examine the context in
which the word 'person' has been used
in Section 14 of the Act.

26. Section 15 of the Act lays
down that all grants shall be made as far
as may be in accordance with the
Bhoodan
Yagna
Scheme.
Further
Section 14 of the Act vest the
committee with the power of making
grants in accordance with the Bhoodan
Yagna Scheme to landless person (now
landless agricultural labourers). Thus
grants/allotments of land under the Act
are to be made only in accordance with
Bhoodan Yagna Scheme to landless
persons.

27. Bhoodan movement or the land
donation movement is a voluntary land
reform movement which was started by
Acharya Vinoba Bhave in 1951. The
movement was started in Pochampally
village in Andhra Pradesh where Vedre
Ramachandra Reddy was the first
person to donate part of his land. The
mission of the movement was to
persuade
wealthy
land
owners
to
voluntary give part of their land to
lower caste persons. Acharya Vinoba
Bhave walked across India on foot, to
persuade landowners to give up a piece
of their land. Later the emphasis was to
persuade land owners/landlords to give
some
land
to
their
poor
and
downtrodden
neighbours.
The
movement
was
a
part
of
a
comprehensive
bigger
movement
'Sarvodaya' that is rise of all socio
economic and political order. It was in
the nature of a experiment towards
social, economic and justice. So from
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

the nature of the scheme of the Bhoodan
Movement the emphasis was to get land
in donation from rich landlords and to
distribute it amongst the poor and
downtrodden landless persons in order
to establish a socio economic order.

28. In U.P. Bhoodan Yagna
Samiti Vs. Braj Kishore 1988 RD 363
(SC) a similar controversy whether the
grant made by the committee in favour
of the respondents was in accordance
with law had arisen before the Supreme
Court. Their lordships of the Supreme
Court by applying the principle that in
interpreting
the
intention
of
the
legislature the entire writing/document
be read from beginning to end in
drawing
conclusion
considered
the
entire Bhoodan Yagna scheme and came
to the conclusion that the fundamental
principal of the Bhoodan movement is
that all children of the soil have an
equal right over the mother earth, in the
same way as those born of a mother
have over her. The Apex Court quoting
from 'Vinoba And His Mission, a book
by Suresh Ram went on to say that the
object of the Bhoodan Movement is to
distribute land received in donation to
those landless louberers who are versed
in agriculture, want to take it, and have
no other means of subsistence."

29. In short, the scheme of
Bhoodan
and
the
Act
postulates
distribution of land only to natural
persons or human beings and not to any
institution society or any other juristic
person. The meaning to the word
'person' used therein has to be assigned
as per the above purpose only. In the
context the word 'person' has been used
in the Act, makes the definition of the
person given in the General Clauses Act
impliedly in applicable. The word
'person' in the Act has been used in a
narrower sense and not in its broader or
legal sense. The use of the word 'person'
in the legal sense would actually
frustrate/the laudable object of the Act
and would deprive the actual tillers from
receiving land. Thus, by necessary
implication in reference to the context
of the Act the word 'person' is
differently used and the definition as
contained in the two General Clauses
Act would not be applicable.

30. In view of above, I am of the
opinion that the meaning of the word
'person' used in Section 14 of the Act
has to be construed in a narrower sense
in the context of the Bhoodan scheme
which envisaged for giving land to the
tillers of the soil excluding all juristic
persons from its ambit.

31. Petitioner is not a natural
'person' and is not the tiller of the land
versed in agriculture or dependent upon
it.

32. In view of above, order of
Collector dated 21.10.2011 apart from
other grounds, rightly cancels the grant
made to the petitioner in exercise of
powers under Section 15 of the Act.

33. The writ petition as such lacks
merit and is dismissed.
---------
1 All] Vinod Kumar Rajbhar V. State of U.P. and others

255
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76692 of 2011

Vinod Kumar Rajbhar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Subhash Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahesh Narain Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
Petition-arises
out
from
mutation
proceeding-held-not maintainable as no
right
on
title
are
decided-petition
dismissed with liberty to get the title
decided in regular Suit.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above, as no substantive
rights of the parties have been decided or
are likely to be decided in the pending
proceedings, no case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is made out.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner.

2. It appears that on an application
filed under Section 33/39 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, an order was passed
by the Up Ziladhikari on 25.2.1997
directing for deleting the name of Bal
Roop son of Dharm Dev against Khata
No.151 plot No.1 area 3-3-6 and for
recording the names of Shiv Lochan and
Shiv Govind both sons of Sarjoo.

3. Petitioner on 17.1.2008 applied
for recall of the above order on the
ground that he has acquired rights in the
land in dispute on the basis of a
registered Will alleged to have been
executed and left behind by Bal Roop.
The said application has been rejected
and the petitioner's revision has also been
dismissed.

4. In sum and substance, the writ
petition
arises
out
of
mutation
proceedings/correction
of
revenue
entries.

5. The law is well-settled that:

(i)
mutation
proceedings
are
summary in nature wherein title of the
parties over the land involved is not
decided;

(ii) mutation order or revenue
entries are only for the fiscal purposes to
enable the State to collect revenue from
the person recorded;

(iii) they neither extinguish nor
create title;

(iv) the order of mutation does not
in any way effect the title of the parties
over the land in dispute; and

(v) such orders or entries are not
documents of title and are subject to
decision of the competent court.

6. It is equally settled that the
orders for mutation are passed on the
basis of the possession of the parties and
since no substantive rights of the parties