# Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli v. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-14
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 652 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dedaur-inter-college-dedaur-raebareli-v-addl-collector-admn-raebareli-others-42492
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

(A) Uttar Pradesh Bhudan Ygya Act, 1952Section 14- Whether Private Inter College
can be treated "Landless Agricultural
Labours" for grant of Patta? Held-"No"
such action treating landless person-viod
ab 'initio'.

Held: Para-32

In view of the above said fact and taking
into consideration the provisions in
respect to grant of patta/ lease under
Section 14 of the Act , the petitioner
does not falls within the ambit and scope
of the definition of 'landless person' to
whom patta/ lease can be granted under
the said section, initial grant of patta/
lease in favour of the petitioner by
Bhoodan Yagya Samiti treating it as
'landless person' is an act which is void
ab initio because the petitioner is not
eligible for the same under Section 14 of
the Act in view of the movement started
by Acharya Vinoba Bahave known as
"Bhoodan Yagya Movement" in which
the Zamindars etc. donated their lands to
Acharyaji and thereafter the said lands
came with Bhoodan Yagaya Simiti, and
the same was to be granted as per the
mandate provided by the legislature
under Section 14 of the Act, so keeping
in view the said facts the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
taking
into
aid
the
provisions of Section 195 read with
Section 198 (i-a) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, the said argument has got no force ,
hence rejected.

(B)Constitution
Of
India:Art.
226-
Principle of Natural Justice-where action
of granting lease itself 'ab initio viod'-
observance
of
Principle
of
Natural
Justice-held-meaning-less.

Held: Para-37

The arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner that prior to
passing of the impugned order, no
opportunity of hearing has been given to
the petitioner, so the said action on the
part of respondents is in violation of
principles of natural justice , has got no
force in view of the facts stated herein
above specially on two conditions; (a)
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
where
the
facts
are
admitted/
undisputed or (b) nothing unfair can be
inferred by non-observance of natural
justice , lease / patta cannot be granted
to
the
petitioner/
institution
under
Section 14 of the Act, because it does not
fall under the category of landless
person, hence the petitioner cannot
derive any benefit on the arguments in
question and on the basis of judgments
rendered in the case of Ramji Dass and
others ( supra) and Ram Dhani Singh
(supra).

Case Law discussed:
1978, ARC, 496; 1996 RD 374; 2002(1) AWC
84; 2012 (6) ADJ 21; 2012 (11) SC 321; AIR
1988 SC 2239; 1988 RD 363

## Text

_Characters 0–39,871 of 53,980. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39871 for what follows._

1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
305
the tractor becomes a good vehicle when
a trailer has been attached to it.

40. The law cited by the counsel for
the appellant is not applicable to the facts
of this case. In our considered opinion,
the Tribunal has not committed any error
in law or on facts in holding that appellant
is liable to pay the amount to the
claimants under the award.

41. For all the reasons stated above,
the appeal is dismissed.

42. Statutory amount deposited by
the appellant in this Court be remitted to
the Tribunal concerned within two weeks
from
today
for
adjustment
and
disbursement
to
the
claimants
in
accordance with the award.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No. 652 of 1998

Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.S. Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C
Sri R.N. Gupta

(A) Uttar Pradesh Bhudan Ygya Act, 1952Section 14- Whether Private Inter College
can be treated "Landless Agricultural
Labours" for grant of Patta? Held-"No"
such action treating landless person-viod
ab 'initio'.

Held: Para-32

In view of the above said fact and taking
into consideration the provisions in
respect to grant of patta/ lease under
Section 14 of the Act , the petitioner
does not falls within the ambit and scope
of the definition of 'landless person' to
whom patta/ lease can be granted under
the said section, initial grant of patta/
lease in favour of the petitioner by
Bhoodan Yagya Samiti treating it as
'landless person' is an act which is void
ab initio because the petitioner is not
eligible for the same under Section 14 of
the Act in view of the movement started
by Acharya Vinoba Bahave known as
"Bhoodan Yagya Movement" in which
the Zamindars etc. donated their lands to
Acharyaji and thereafter the said lands
came with Bhoodan Yagaya Simiti, and
the same was to be granted as per the
mandate provided by the legislature
under Section 14 of the Act, so keeping
in view the said facts the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
taking
into
aid
the
provisions of Section 195 read with
Section 198 (i-a) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, the said argument has got no force ,
hence rejected.

(B)Constitution
Of
India:Art.
226-
Principle of Natural Justice-where action
of granting lease itself 'ab initio viod'-
observance
of
Principle
of
Natural
Justice-held-meaning-less.

Held: Para-37

The arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner that prior to
passing of the impugned order, no
opportunity of hearing has been given to
the petitioner, so the said action on the
part of respondents is in violation of
principles of natural justice , has got no
force in view of the facts stated herein
above specially on two conditions; (a)
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
where
the
facts
are
admitted/
undisputed or (b) nothing unfair can be
inferred by non-observance of natural
justice , lease / patta cannot be granted
to
the
petitioner/
institution
under
Section 14 of the Act, because it does not
fall under the category of landless
person, hence the petitioner cannot
derive any benefit on the arguments in
question and on the basis of judgments
rendered in the case of Ramji Dass and
others ( supra) and Ram Dhani Singh
(supra).

Case Law discussed:
1978, ARC, 496; 1996 RD 374; 2002(1) AWC
84; 2012 (6) ADJ 21; 2012 (11) SC 321; AIR
1988 SC 2239; 1988 RD 363
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J)

1. Heard Sri G.S. Nigam and Sri
Abhishit Saran Nigam, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Patel,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel and perused the record.

2. Petitioner/Dedaur Inter College,
Dedaur, Raebareli ( hereinafter referred to
as an ' Institution') is a recognized
educational institution governed by the
provisions
as
provided
under
U.P.
Intermediate
Act,
1921,
imparting
education upto intermediate classes in
various
subjects
including
Science,
Commerce and Arts. In order to impart
education in Botany subject , a request
has been made by the Management
Committee of the institution to opposite
party no.5/ Bhoodan Yagya Samiti,
Raebareli for allotment of a land.

3. Accordingly in the year 1968 a
patta/lease granted in favour of the
institution in respect to plots no. 39/0.041
Hec., 434/0.481 hectare, 435/0.275 hectare,
449/0.278 hectare, 451/0.041 hectare and
452/0.461 hectare ( hereinafter referred to
as ' land in question').

4. In the mutation case on 24.2.1998
an order was passed in favour of the
petitioner recording the said land in the
name of institution in the revenue record (
Khatauni of fasli years 1375-1377), as
Bhumidhar with transferable rights .

5. On 18.4.1996, the petitioner by
way of rumour in the village , came to
know that land in question has been
allotted to some other person by opposite
party no.4 / Gram Panchyat, Nagdilpur,
District Raebareli . So after engaging a
Counsel , petitioner inspected the revenue
record in the office of the Collector, Rae
bareli and it came to knowledge that the
lease/ patta granted in favour of the
petitioner/ institution, has been canceled
on 29.6.1991 by opposite party no.1 /
Additional Collector( Administration),
Raebarli.

6. Accordingly as per the legal
advise given to the institution, an
application dated 26.9.1991 was moved
for setting aside the ex parte order dated
29.6.1991 alongwith an application for
condonation of delay, before opposite
party no.2/ Collector, Rae bareli. After
hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as District Government
Counsel, opposite party no.2 / Collector
Rae Bareil rejected the said application by
order dated 8.12.1997 ( Annexure no.7) .
In view of the above said factual
background, present writ petition has been
filed for quashing the orders dated
29.6.1991 and 8.12.1997 passed by
opposite party nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner
while challenging the impugned orders
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
307
submits that the land in question has been
granted by way of patta/ lease in favour of
the petitioner by opposite party no.5/
Bhoodan Yagya Samiti, Rae bareli in the
year 1968 treating the institution as '
landless person' as per the provisions as
provided under Section 14 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Boodan
Yagna
Act,
1952
(hereinafter referred to as an 'Act')
subsequently, it was recorded in the revenue
record as Bhumidhari land with transferable
rights of the institution.

7. Power to cancel the grant of
patta/lease has been introduced in Act by
way of Section 15-A through U.P. Act
no.10 of 1975 with effect from 21.1.1975
by which the Collector has been given
powers to cancel the grant after making
an inquiry on the ground that grant was
irregular and was obtained by grantee by
misrepresentation or fraud

8. Further, sub Section (2) of
Section 15-A provides that notice of every
proceeding under sub section (1) shall be
given to the Committee and sub section
(3) provides that no order shall be passed
under sub section (1) except after giving
an opportunity of being heard to the
grantee.
In
the
instant
case,
no
opportunity of hearing has been provided
to the petitioner before passing the order
of cancellation dated 29.6.1991.

9. For the first time the said order
came to the knowledge of the petitioner
on 18.4.1996 thereafter on inspection it
also came to the knowledge of the
petitioner that prior to the passing of the
order of cancellation , a notice has
allegedly said to be served on 23.7.1990
upon the Pradhan Adhyapak of the
institution. The said facts are totally
incorrect, so with application for recall of
the said order, an affidavit of Sri Ram
Manohar, the then Manager of the
Institution, has been filed stating therein
that the service of the notice prior to
passing of the order dated 29.6.1991 has
been made on the Pradhan Adhyapak of
the institution, is incorrect fact and his
signature on the notice is forged as he has
already retired from service but ignoring
the said facts opposite party no.2 passed
the order dated 8.12.1997 rejecting the
application for recall of the ex parte order
dated 29.6.1991, so the impugned order
on the part of opposite party no.2 is
arbitrary in nature.

10. Further, the opposite party no.1
in the order dated 29.6.1991 has not
mentioned that any notice has been served
on Bhoodan Yagna Samiti which is
mandatory under sub section (2) of
Section 15-A of the Act so the action on
the part of opposite party no.1 thereby
passing the order of cancellation dated
29.6.1991 without hearing the Bhoodan
Yagna Samiti as well as the petitioner and
declaring that the land in question shall
vest with opposite party no.4/Gram
Panchayat, Nagdilpur, Pargana Tehsil and
District Rae bareli after cancellation of
patta , is an action in contravention of
principles of natural justice, contrary to
law, cannot sustain, so the impugned
orders dated 29.6.1991 and 8.12.1997
passed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2
liable to be set aside in view of the law as
laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in the case of Ramji Das and others Vs.
Mohan Singh, 1978, ARC ,496 as well
as the decision of this Court in the case of
Ram Dhani Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 1996 RD 374.

11. Further, during the course of
arguments a question has been put to the
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
learned counsel for the petitioner that
whether the institution is entitled to get
patta/ lease as per the provisions of
Section 14 of the Act ( as stood at the
relevant time) on the ground that the
institution is a 'landless person'.

12. Submission which has been
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to the said query that in the
present case patta/ lease granted to the
petitioner/institution in the year 1968
under Section 14 of the Act by the
Bhoodan Yagya Simiti, authorized to
grant the same treating as 'landless
person'.

13. And 'landless person' has not
been defined in the Act. So as per the
provisions of Section 2(f) (i to iii) of the
Act quoted below:-

"Section 2(f) words and expressions
not defined in this Act shall have the
meaning assigned to them-

(i) in areas referred to in sub clause
(I) of clause (c) in the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

(ii) in areas referred to in sub-
clause(ii) of the said clause in the U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939;

(iii) in other areas, in the law
relating to land tenure applicable to the
land."

14. The meaning of ' landless
person' shall be the same as given under
Section 198 of U.P. Zimindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 by way of
amendment in corporated by U.P. Act no.
1 of 1951, the relevant provisions quoted
as under:-

"Amendment of Section 198 of U.P.
Act I of 1951- In section 198 of the
Principal Act-

(I) in sub-section (i)-

(a) the word and figures" or 237"
shall be deleted",

(b) before clause (a) the following
shall be added as a new clause (i-a) -

"(i-a)
a
recognized
Educational
Institution for the purpose connected with
instruction in agriculture, horticulture or
animal husbandry;"

15. In view of above said facts, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that taking into consideration
the provisions as provided under Section
195 and 198 (i-a) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as
well as the provisions of Section 14 of the
Act, the lease/patta in favour of the
petitioner has rightly been rightly by
opposite party no.5 treating it as ' landless
person'.

16. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that as there is
no limitation provided for cancellation /
grant of patta under the Act so keeping in
view the provisions of Article 137 of the
Limitation Act as well as Section 198(6)
of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act after expiry of
23 years from the date of grant of patta/
lease in favour of the petitioner by
opposite party no.5/ Boodan Yagya
Samiti, Raebareli, the said patta cannot be
cancelled by order dated 29.6.1991 by
opposite party no.1 as such the said order
passed by opposite party no.1 is without
jurisdiction , contrary to law, liable to be
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
309
set aside and the writ petition may be
allowed.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED
STATE COUNSEL

17. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned State
counsel while supporting the impugned
orders under challenge in the writ petition,
submits that as per the provisions of Section
14 of the Act , patta/lease can be granted
only to landless person so initially granted in
favour of the petitioner by opposite party
no.5 / Bhoodan Yagya Samiti, Rae bareli in
the year 1968, is void ab initio, as the
petitioner is not entitled for the same for
imparting education to the students in Botany
subject, in addition to the subjects already
taught by the institution up to intermediate
classes . In this regard he placed reliance on
the following judgments:-

1. Yog Sansthan Vs.Collector,
Moradabad and others,2002(1) AWC
84.

2. Dayanand Sury Englo Sanskrat
Higher Secondary School Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2012 (6) ADJ 21.

3. State of Uttarakhand and others
Vs. Guru Ram Das Educational Trust
Society, 2012(11) SC 321.

18. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
argued that in view of the provisions of
Section 198 (i-a) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.
Act( as stood at the relevant point of time)
the petitioner/ institution is not entitled for
grant of patta as it is not a Educational
Institution for a purpose connected with
instructions in agriculture, horticulture or
animal husbandry so initially grant of
lease/ patta in favour of the petitioner by
opposite party no.5 is void initio act under
Section 14 of the Act as such there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order dated 29.6.1991 passed by opposite
party no.1 canceling the lease/patta..

19. Learned State Counsel further
submits that so far as the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that opposite party no.1 has got
no jurisdiction to cancel the patta as per
Section 15 of the Act , has got no force in
view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Samiti, U.P. Vs. Braj Kishore
and others , AIR 1988 SC 2239.

20. Lastly, it has been submitted on
behalf of the respondents that so far as the
arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner that after lapse of period
of 23 years from the date of grant of patta/
lease in favour of the petitioner by
opposite party no.5, cannot be cancelled
in view of the provisions as provided
under Section 198(6) of the U.P.Z.A.&
L.R. Act and Article 137 of the Limitation
Act , is misconceived arguments because
there is no limitation provided for
cancellation of the same under Section 15
of the Act keeping in view the said fact as
well as the fact that the petitioner is not
entitled to get the patta under Section 14
of the Act as it does not fall within the
definition of 'landless person', so initial
grant of patta in the year 1968 by opposite
party no.5 is void initio, hence there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
orders under challenge in the present writ
petition,accordingly
the
present
writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

21. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

22. Aim and object for enacting the
Act 1952 as as under:-
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

"In the last cold weather Acharya
Vinoba Bhave started the Bhoodan Yagna
movement with a view to obtain land so
that it could be distributed among the
landless person of the State. The response
of
the
people
of
the
State
very
encouraging. The Zamindars as well as
the
tenants
donated
their
land
to
Acharyaji. There were, however, certain
legal difficulties. The donations made by
the Zimindars were defective according to
the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms
Act, 1950. The tenants did not possess
any right to transfer their land by gift. The
Bill is intended to remove these and
certain other legal difficulties and to
ensure the achievement of the object of
this movement. Both in regard to the
donations of land to the Bhoodan Yagna
and its distribution to the landless
person."

23. Thus, the intention of the
legislature in framing the U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 is to grant land to
landless person who are bedded to the soil
or who have attachment with the soil in
any form and who have know about the
soil. Philosophy that the land must go to
the tiller has been implemented in so
many countries and reasonably in India to
implement preamble of the Constitution
i.e. to achieve social justice and to secure
distributive justice under Article 38 of the
Constitution of India.

24. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti
Vs. Graj Kishore and others, 1988 RD
363 has held as under:-

" It is now well settled that in order
to interpret a law one must understand the
background and the purpose for which the
law was enacted. And in this context as
indicated earlier if one has bothered to
understand the common phrase use in the
Bhoodan Movement as 'Bhomihin Kissan'
which has been translated into English to
mean ' landless persons' there would have
been no difficultly but apart from it even
as contended by learned counsel that it
was clearly indicated by Section 15 that
the allotment could only be made in
accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan
and the movement of Sri Vinoba Bhave, it
would be worthwhile to quote from
'Vinoba and His Mission' by Suresh Ram
Printed with an introduction by Sri Jaya
Prakash Narain and foreword by Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan. In this work, statement of
annual Sarvodaya conference at Sevapuri
has been quoted as under:-

"The fundamental principle of the
Bhoodan Yagna 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. It
is, therefore, essential that the entire land
of the country should be equitably
redistributed a new providing roughly at
least five acre of dry land or one acre of
wet land to every family. The Sarvodaya
Samaj, by appealing to the good sense of
people , should prepare their minds for
this equitable distribution and acquire
within the next two years at least 25 lakhs
of acres of land from about five acres per
village. This land will be distributed to
those landless labourers who are versed in
agriculture, want to take to it, and have no
other means of subsistence."

25. In order to decide the
controversy involved in the present case ,
the necessary of Section 14, 15 and 15-A
of the Act are as under:-
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
311

"14. Grant of land to landless
person.- [(1)] The Committee or such
other
authority
or
person
as
the
Committee with the approval of the State
Government , specify either generally or
in respect to any area, may , in the manner
prescribed , grant lands which have vested
in
it
to
the
[landless
agricultural
labourers] and the grantee of the land
shall-

(I) where the land is situate in any
state which has vested in the State
Government under and in accordance
with section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
acquire in such land the right and the
liabilities of a [bhumidhar with nontransferable rights] and the grantee of the
land shall

(II) where it is situate in any other
area, acquire therein such rights and
liabilities and subject to such conditions,
restrictions and limitations as may be
prescribed and shall have effect, any law
to the contrary notwithstanding.

[(2)] Where the committee or other
authority or person as aforesaid fails to
grant any land in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of three years
from the date of vesting of such land in
the committee or from the date of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975,
whichever is later, the Collector may
himself grant such land to the landless
agricultural labourers in the manner
prescribed, and thereupon the grantee
shall acquire the rights and liabilities
mentioned in sub-section (1) as if the
grant were made by the committee itself.

(3)[***]

(4) In making grant of land under
this section, the committee or other
authority or person as aforesaid or the
Collector, as the case may be , shall
observe the following principles:

(a) At least fifty percent of the land
available for grant shall be granted to
persons belonging to the Scheduled Casts,
Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging
to the Kol, Pathari, Khairwar, Baiga,
Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and
such other tribes as the State Government
on the recommendation of the committee
may notify in this behalf;

(b) The land situate in one village
shall , as for as possible, be granted to
persons residing in that very village.

15.
Grant
to
be
made
in
accordance
with
Bhoodan
Yagna
Scheme.- All grants shall be made as for
as may be in accordance with the Scheme
of Bhoodan Yagna.

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 such land
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
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 the 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."

26. Before amendment of Section 14
by the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna(
Amendment) Act, 1975 the word which
existed therein was "landless person" but
by way of said amendment same has been
substituted by " landless agricultural
labourers" .

27. Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna Rules, 1953 provides as
under:-

"14 Rights to liabilities of persons
to whom land is granted.-(1) The
Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall execute
a donation deed which may be in the form
as in Appendix VII.

(2) The grantee of land in the areas to
which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, does not apply
shall acquire such right and liabilities as
the committee may confer under the law.
The grantee shall be subject to the
following conditions, restrictions , and
limitations:

(a) the grantee shall pay the rent to
the Committee in such installments and
on such dates as the Committee may
specify;

(b) the grantee shall not be entitled to
sublet or transfer the land; and

(c) the grantee shall not be entitled to
use the land for any purpose other than for
which it was granted."

28. In the instant matter , the core
question to be decided is whether the
institution (Dedaur Inter College, Dadaur,
Rae Bareli) imparting education upto
Intermediate classes as per the provisions
as provided under U.P. Intermediate
Education Act , 1921, can be granted the
land for extension of Botany classes by
opposite party no.5 under Section 14 of
the Act by way of lease/ patta treating it
as 'landless person'.

29. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti,
U.P. (supra) in respect to grant of
patta/lease under Section 14 of the Act
held as under:-

"It was contended by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner (Bhoodan
Yagna Samiti) that although Sec. 14
quoted above does not clearly indicate
what the law meant by landless persons
but in view of the scheme of Bhooden
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
313
Yagna the movement which Acharya
Vinoba Bhave and later Jaya Prakash
Narain carried out and the purpose of the
movement clearly indicated that when in
Sec. 14 allotment was contemplated in
favour of landless persons it only meant
those landless persons whose main source
of livelihood was agriculture and who
were agriculturists residing in the village
where the land is situated and who has no
land in their name at that time. It never
meant that all those rich persons who are
residing in the cities and have properties
in
their
possession
but
who
are
technically landless persons as they did
not have any agricultural land in their
name in the tehsil or the village where the
land was situated or acquired by the
Bhoodan Samiti that it could be allotted
in their favour. This was not the purpose
or the philosophy of Bhoodan Yagna and
therefore it was contended that such a
view which has been taken by the learned
Judges of the High Court is contrary to
law and the interpretation put by the High
Court on the language of Sec 14 could not
be justified. It was contended that
landless person has to be interpreted in
the background of the law which was
enacted and the movement and the
philosophy behind the movement which
was the basis of the enactment of this law
and it is only in that background that
these words landless persons could be
properly interpreted.

At the time when Acharya Vinoba
Bhave started his movement of Bhoodan
Yagna our rural society had a peculiar
diversity. There were some who owned or
had leasehold rights in vast tracks of
agricultural lands whereas on the other
hand there were those who were working
on agriculture as labourers in the fields
and depending on what little they got
from their masters. Sometimes they were
even bound down to their masters and
therefore had to lead miserable life. It
was this problem in rural India which
attracted the attention of Acharya Vinoba
Bhave followed by Shri Jaya Prakash
Narain and they secured large donations
of land from big land holders and the
scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna movement
was to distribute this land to those
Bhoomihin Kissan who were living on
agriculture but had no land of their own
and it was to make this effective and
statutory that this law was enacted and in
this context it is clear that if one had
noticed even the slogan of the Acharya
Vinoba Bhave s movement or its basis and
the purpose it would have clearly
indicated the problem which was to be
remedied by this enactment and if this
was looked into for the purpose of
interpretation
of
the
term
landless
persons no Court could have come to the
conclusion which has been arrived at in
the impugned judgment.

This principle of interpretation was
not enunciated only for interpretation of
law
but
it
was
enunciated
for
interpretating any piece of literature and
it meant that when you have to give
meaning to anything in writing then you
must understand the real meaning. You
can only understand the real meaning by
understanding the reference, context, the
circumstances in which it was stated and
the problems or the situations which were
intended to be met by what was said and
it is only when you take into consideration
all this background, circumstances and
the problems which have to be tackled
that you could really understand the real
meaning of the words. This exactly is the
principle
which
deserves
to
be
considered.
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

When we are dealing with the phrase
landless persons these words are from
English language and therefore I am
reminded of what Lord Denning said
about it. Lord Denning in The Discipline
of Law at Page No. 12 observed as under:

Whenever a statute comes up for
consideration it must be remembered that
it is not within human powers to foresee
the manifold sets of facts which may arise,
and, even if it were, it is not possible to
provide for them in terms free from all
ambiguity. The English language is not an
instrument of mathematical precision.
Our literature would be much the poorer
if it were. This is where the draftsmen of
Acts of Parliament have often been
unfairly criticized. A Judge, believing
himself to be fettered by the supposed rule
that he must look to the language and
nothing else, laments that the draftsmen
have not provided for this or that, or have
been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It
would certainly save the judges trouble if
Acts of Parliament were PG NO 868
drafted with divine prescience and perfect
clarity. In the absence of it, when a defect
appears a judge cannot simply fold his
hands and blame the draftsmen. He must
set to work on the constructive task of
finding the intention of Parliament.

And it is clear that when one has to
look to the intention of the Legislature,
one has to look to the circumstances
under which the law was enacted. The
Preamble of the law, the mischief which
was intended to be remedied by the
enactment of the statute and in this
context, Lord Denning, in the same book
at Page No. 10, observed as under:

At one time the Judges used to limit
themselves to the bare reading of the
Statute itself-to go simply by the words,
giving them their grammatical meaning
and that was all. That view was prevalent
in the l9th century and still has some
supporters today. But it is wrong in
principle. The Statute as it appears to
those who have to obey it--and to those
who have to advise them what to do about
it; in short, to lawyers like yourselves.
Now the eccentrics cut off from all that is
happening around them. The Statute
comes to them as men of affairs--who
have their own feeling for the meaning of
the words and know the reason why the
Act was passed--just as if it had been fully
set out in a preamble. So it has been held
very rightly that you can enquire into the
mischief which gave rise to the Statute--to
see what was the evil which it was sought
to remedy."

It is now well settled that in order to
interpret a law one must under-stand the
background and the purpose for which the
law was enacted. And in this context as
indicated earlier if one has bothered to
under-stand the common phrase used in
the Bhoodan Movement as Bhoomihin
Kissan which has been translated into
English to mean landless persons there
would have been no difficulty but apart
from it even as contended by learned
counsel that it was clearly indicated by
Sec. 15 that the allotments could only be
made in accordance with the scheme of
Bhoodan Yagna. In order to understand
the scheme of Bhoodan and the movement
of Shri Vinoba Bhave, it would be
worthwhile to quote from Vinoba And His
Mission by Suresh Ram printed with an
introduction by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain
and foreword by Dr. S. RadhaKrishnan.
In this work, statement of annual
Sarvodya Conference at Sevapuri has
been quoted as under: PG NO 869
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
315

The fundamental principle of the
Bhoodan Yagna 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.
It is, therefore, essential that the entire
land of the country should be equitably
redistributed anew, providing roughly at
least five acres of dry land or one acre of
wet land to every family. The Sarvodaya
Samaj, by appealing to the good sense of
the people, should prepare their minds for
this equitable distribution and acquire
within the next two years at least 25 lakhs
of acres of land from about five lakhs of
our villages on the rough basis of five
acres per village. This land will be
distributed to those landless labourers
who are versed in agriculture, want to
take to it, and have no other means of
subsistence. "

This would clearly indicate the
purpose of the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna
and it is clear that Sec. 15 provided that
all allotments in accordance with Sec. 14
could only be done under the scheme of
the Bhoodan Yagna.

This Court in the case of Dayanand
Sury Sanskrat High Secondary School (
supra) where that facts of the case were
that the land has been allotted under
Section 14 of the Act to the institution
known as Dayanand Sury Sanskrat High
Secondary
School,
a
recognized
institution
under
U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
imparting
education
including the subject of agriculture and is
not earning livelihood through agriculture
under the capacity of 'landless person' the
Apex Court held that the land cannot be
allotted , the relevant portion is quoted as
under:-

"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.

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.

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.

At the relevant time, committee was
authorized to make grants in favour of
"landless persons."

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.

Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for
the petitioner on the strength of the
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
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.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

A similar and identical definition of
a person exists under Section 4(33) of the
U.P. General Clauses Act, 1994.

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
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
317
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.