# Dulari & Ors v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 1252
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-08
- **Case number:** Moora Dih) in Criminal Appeal No.2169 of 1983
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dulari-ors-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-allahabad-anr-48409
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Uttar Pradesh Zamidari
Abolition & Land Revenue Act,1950 -
Sections 157-AA, 166 & 167 -----The
restrictions contained u/Ss 157-AA and the
requirement of the permission of Assistant
Collector in a case where transfer is sought to
be made by a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste having become a bhumidhar with
transferable rights u/S 131-B, in favour of a
person who also belongs to a Scheduled Caste
are mandatory and any transfer made in
contravention thereof shall by virtue of the
provisions contained u/S 166 be rendered void
and the consequences of such void transfer as
provided u/S 167 would ensue.

B. Court's function is to construe the words used
in an enactment so far as possible in a way
which best gives effect to the purpose of an
enactment.

Writ Petition is dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,818 of 40,344. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39818 for what follows._

1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate but how relevant and admissible
that fact would be could not be explained.
The evidence of this witness, therefore, is
not of any avail against the proved case of
prosecution with regard to the identification
and involvement of accused persons in the
incident dated 12.04.1979 at the relevant
time on the spot of the incident in the
killing of the deceased "Ramashre".

122. D.W.-3, is also of no avail as the
proceedings on record of the trial is very
much before this Court of appeal and how
and to what extent anything otherwise and
beyond the lower court record would be
relevant could not be argued by the learned
counsel.

123. Against the proved case of
prosecution by the above noted evidences,
the defence taken by the accused is not
established and remains unfounded in the
evidence of the defence witnesses.

We
find
no
substance
in
the
submissions of the learned counsels for
the appellants in the appeals so as to
interfere in the impugned judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated
14.09.1983 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial
No.92 of 1982, under Sections 147, 148,
302/149, 324/149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

Operative

124. On the discussion made
hereinabove, we do not find any force in
the criminal appeal of "Brijraj" in
Criminal Appeal No.2170 of 1983 and
criminal appeal of Prahlad (of Village
Moora Dih) in Criminal Appeal No.2169
of
1983
against
the
judgment
of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria
in Sessions Trial No.92 of 1982 dated
14.09.1983, under Sections 147, 148,
302/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, therefore, the appeals deserve
to be dismissed and hereby both the
appeals are dismissed.

125. The judgement of conviction
and order of sentence in Sessions Trial
No.92 of 1982 dated 14.09.1983, under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is affirmed.
The bail bonds and surety bonds on behalf
of accused-appellant "Prahlad" (of Village
Moora Dih) are hereby cancelled.

126. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Deoria is directed to take into custody the
accused-appellant "Prahlad" (of Village
Moora Dih) and send him to jail in
compliance of this judgement.

127. The lower court record be sent
back to the trial court for further action.
Certify this judgment to the court below
for
further
necessary
action
and
compliance.
----------
(2022)04ILR A1252
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2022

BEFORE

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

Writ B No. 211 of 2022

Dulari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
4 All. Dulari & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr.
1253
Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Sri Anil Kumar
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law -Uttar Pradesh Zamidari
Abolition & Land Revenue Act,1950 -
Sections 157-AA, 166 & 167 -----The
restrictions contained u/Ss 157-AA and the
requirement of the permission of Assistant
Collector in a case where transfer is sought to
be made by a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste having become a bhumidhar with
transferable rights u/S 131-B, in favour of a
person who also belongs to a Scheduled Caste
are mandatory and any transfer made in
contravention thereof shall by virtue of the
provisions contained u/S 166 be rendered void
and the consequences of such void transfer as
provided u/S 167 would ensue.

B. Court's function is to construe the words used
in an enactment so far as possible in a way
which best gives effect to the purpose of an
enactment.

Writ Petition is dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Man Singh Vs Commissioner, Bareilly Mandal
& ors. 2008(2) AWC 1998(All)

2. Allahabad Bank & anr. Vs All India Allahabad
Bank Retired Employees Association (2010)2
SCC 44

3. Bharat Singh Vs Management of New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi & Ors. (1986)2
SCC 14

4. Surajmal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2020 (146)RD
560
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Ravesh
Kumar Singh and Ms. Shikha Dixit,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
by the petitioners seeking a direction to
quash the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by
the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad
whereby the earlier order dated 28.03.2007
passed by the ADM (City)/ Addl. Collector,
Agra in exercise of the powers under
Section 167 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition And Land Reforms Act 19501
has been affirmed.

3. Pleadings in the petition are to the
effect that the land in question bearing
Arazi No. 665/0.2540 Hec. of Khata No.
214 situate in Village-Digner, Tehsil-Sadar,
District- Agra was recorded in the name of
one Prem Singh who is stated to have
become a bhumidhar with transferable
rights under Section 131-B of the ZA & LR
Act and subsequently, executed a registered
sale deed dated 01.10.2005 in favour of the
petitioner no. 1. A report dated 02.12.2005
was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar
(Kundal), Agra pointing out that the
transfer made was in violation of Section
157-AA of the ZA & LR Act as the same
was without the required prior approval of
the authority concerned and accordingly, a
recommendation was made for proceedings
to be undertaken as per Section 166-167 of
the ZA & LR Act. Upon the aforesaid
report Case No. 02 of 2005-06 (State vs.
Ramdulari) was instituted and a show cause
notice dated 26.12.2005 was issued to the
petitioner no. 1 who submitted her
objections dated 26.04.2006. The case
came to be decided in terms of an order
dated 28.03.2007 wherein the Additional
Collector upon considering the facts of the
case held that no prior approval has been
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
obtained before making of the transfer and
the same being in contravention of Section
157-AA of the ZA & LR Act, he made a
recommendation for vesting of the land in
the State Government as per the provisions
of Section 167 of the ZA & LR Act.

4. Aggrieved by the same the
petitioner preferred a
revision under
Section 333 of the ZA & LR Act which has
also been dismissed in terms of an order
dated 16.12.2021 affirming the findings
and the order passed by the Additional
Collector.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has sought to assail the aforesaid order and
contends that in the present case since the
transferor and the transferee both belong to
the Scheduled Caste, the restriction under
Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act was
not attracted and no previous approval of
the Assistant Collector was required prior
to making of the transfer.

6. Submission is that there being no
violation of the provisions of Section 157AA of the ZA & LR Act the consequences
enshrined under Section 167 of the ZA &
LR Act would not follow and for the said
reason the orders are erroneous and are
liable to be set aside.

7.

Controverting
the
aforesaid
submissions, learned Additional Advocate
General
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents submits that Section 157-AA
of the ZA & LR Act provides for certain
restrictions on transfer by the members of
Scheduled Castes becoming bhumidhar
under Section 131-B of the ZA & LR Act.
He submits that as per the case pleaded in
the petition, the transferor is stated to have
become
a
bhumidhar
by
virtue
of
provisions contained under Section 131-B
of the ZA & LR Act. It is pointed out that
Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act
contains an absolute bar on transfer being
made by members of Scheduled Castes in
favour of any person not belonging to a
Scheduled Caste. It is further submitted that
even in respect of transfer made by a
member of Scheduled Caste to another
member of the Scheduled Caste there are
certain conditions specified under the
section. Reference is made of sub-section
(4) of Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act
which provides that no transfer can be
made without previous approval of the
Assistant Collector.

8. The question which thus arises in
the present case is as to whether in a case
where the transferor and the transferee both
are members of Scheduled Caste, would the
restrictions contained under Section 157AA of the ZA & LR Act, be attracted.

9.

For
appreciating
the
rival
contentions,
the
relevant
statutory
provisions may be adverted to.

10. Section 131-B, as inserted by U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 19952 with effect from
January 14, 1995, was brought in with the
main object to confer transferable rights on
persons who were bhumidhars with nontransferable rights immediately before
commencement of the aforementioned
Amendment Act, 1995 and had been such
bhumidhar for a period of ten years or
more. Section 131-B referred to above is
being extracted below:-

"131-B. Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights to become bhumidhar
with transferable rights after ten years.--
(1) Every person who was a bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights immediately
4 All. Dulari & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr.
1255
before the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and had
been such bhumidhar for a period of ten
years or more, shall become a bhumidhar
with
transferable
rights
on
such
commencement.c

(2) Every person who is a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on
the commencement referred to in subsection (1) or becomes a bhumidhar with
non-transferable
rights
after
such
commencement, shall become bhumidhar
with transferable rights on the expiry of
period of ten years from his becoming a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provision of this
Act, if a person, after becoming a
bhumidhar with transferable rights under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), transfers
the land by way of sale, he shall become
ineligible for a lease of any land vested in
Gaon Sabha or the State Government or of
surplus land as defined in the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960."

11. Section 157-A provides for certain
restrictions on transfer of land by members
of scheduled castes. It provides that a
bhumidhar or asami belonging to a
scheduled caste shall have no right to
transfer any land by sale, gift, mortgage or
lease to a person who does not belong to
such a caste except with the previous
approval of the Collector. The restrictions
imposed on the bhumidhar or asami
belonging to a scheduled caste shall be
without
prejudice
to
the
restrictions
contained in Sections 153 to 157 of the Act.

12. Section 157-AA was inserted in
terms of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997
(U.P. Act No.9 of 1997) with effect from
May 23, 1997 providing for restrictions on
transfer by members of scheduled castes
becoming bhumidhar under Section 131-B.

13. Section 157-AA, as inserted by
the aforementioned Amending Act, is being
reproduced below:-

"157-AA.
Restrictions
on
transfer by member of Scheduled Castes
becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131B.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in Section 157-A, and without prejudice to
the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to
157, no person belonging to Scheduled
Caste having become a Bhumidhar with
transferable rights under Section 131-B
shall have the right to transfer the land by
way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a
person other than a person belonging to a
Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any,
shall be in the following order of
preference :--

(a) landless agricultural labourer;

(b) marginal farmer;

(c) small farmer; and

(d) a person other than a person
referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c).

(2) A transfer in favour of a
person referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) shall be made in order of
preference given below. If a person referred
to in clause (a) is not available then transfer
may be made to a person referred to in
clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a
person referred to in clause (b) is also not
available then to a person referred to in
clause (c) of the said sub-section and if a
person referred to in clause (c) is also not
available then to a person referred to in
clause (d) of the said sub-section in the
same order of preference :--

(a) first, to the resident of the
village where the land is situate;
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) secondly, if no person referred
to in clause (a) is available, to the resident
of any other village within the Panchayat
area comprising the village where the land
is situate;

(c) thirdly, if no person referred
to in clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the
resident
of
a
village
adjoining
the
Panchayat area comprising the village
where the land is situate.

(3) If no person referred to in
sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled
Caste is available, the land may be
transferred to a person belonging to a
Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference
given in sub-sections (1) and (2).

(4) No transfer under this sections
shall be made except with the previous
approval
of
the
Assistant
Collector
concerned.

(5) A transferee of land under
sub-section (1) shall have no right to
transfer the land by way of sale, gift,
mortgage or lease before the expiry of a
period of ten years from the date of transfer
in his favour."

14. Section 157-AA provides that no
person belonging to scheduled caste having
become a bhumidhar with transferable
rights under Section 131-B shall have the
right to transfer the land by way of sale,
gift, mortgage or lease to a person other
than a person belonging to a scheduled
caste and the same shall be in the order of
preference as contained sub-section (1) of
the said section.

15. The provisions contained under
Section 157-A and Section 157-AA both
provide for restrictions on transfer of land
by members of scheduled castes, but with a
clear distinction. In terms of Section 157-A
no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a
scheduled caste can transfer the land to a
person not belonging to a scheduled caste
except with the previous approval of the
Collector whereas under Section 157-AA
the restriction is to the effect that a person
belonging to a scheduled caste having
become a bhumidhar with transferable
rights under Section 131-B shall have no
right to transfer the land by sale or
otherwise to any person other than a person
belonging to a scheduled caste. The transfer
under
Section
157-AA
would
be
permissible only to persons belonging to
scheduled castes in the order of preference
as prescribed under sub-section (1). The
restriction on a scheduled caste with regard
to the transfer of land in favour of a person
who does not belong to a scheduled caste
under Section 157-AA is thus absolute and
such transfer is not permissible in any
contingency. The restriction herein is more
stringent since the land in question is a
lease land and grant of agricultural lease
contemplated under the ZA & LR Act is for
specified object and purpose.

16. The language of sub-section (1) of
Section 157-AA is such that even in case of
a member of a scheduled caste acquiring
transferable rights of a bhumidhar under
Section 131-B who is desirous to transfer
such land to another person belonging to
the scheduled caste by way of sale, gift,
mortgage or lease the right to transfer is not
absolute and the transfer is permissible
only in accordance with the preferences
specified therein.

17. Sub-section (4) provides for a
restraint whereunder no transfer under
Section 157-AA is permissible without the
previous approval of the Assistant Collector
concerned. The language of sub-section (4)
is expressed in wide terms and it covers all
transfers which are contemplated under
Section 157-AA, including a transfer which
4 All. Dulari & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr.
1257
is to be made by a scheduled caste in
favour of a scheduled caste also.

18. The restrictions provided for
under Section 157-AA were made subject
to a further condition with the insertion of
sub-section (5), in Section 157-AA of the
ZA & LR Act in terms of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 2002 (U.P. Act No.11 of
2002) with effect from June 21, 2002. Subsection (5), referred to above, is being
extracted below:-

"(5) A transferee of land under
sub-section (1) shall have no right to
transfer the land by way of sale, gift,
mortgage or lease before the expiry of a
period of ten years from the date of transfer
in his favour."

19. In terms of Section 166 of ZA &
LR Act, transfers made in contravention of
the Act are to be held to be void. The
consequences of such void transfers are
provided for under Section 167. For ease of
reference Sections 166 and 167 are being
extracted below:-

"166.
Transfer
made
in
contravention of the Act to be void.--
Every transfer made in contravention of the
provisions of this Act shall be void.

167.
Consequences
of
void
transfers.
--(1)
The
following
consequences shall ensue in respect of
every transfer which is void by virtue of
Section 166, namely--

(a) the subject-matter of transfer
shall with effect from the date of transfer,
be deemed to have vested in the State
Government free from all encumbrances;

(b) the trees, crops and wells
existing on the land on the date of transfer
shall, with effect from the said date, be
deemed to have vested in the State
Government free from all encumbrances;

(c) the transferee may remove
other moveable property or the materials of
any immovable property existing on such
land on the date of transfer within such
time as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any land or other
property
has
vested
in
the
State
Government under sub-section (1), it shall
be lawful for the Collector to take over
possession over such land or other property
and to direct that any person occupying
such land or property be evicted therefrom.
For the purposes of taking over such
possession or evicting such unauthorised
occupants, the Collector may use or cause
to be used such force as may be necessary."

20. This Court may take notice of the
fact that the ZA & LR Act was enacted to
provide for abolition of the zamindari
system
which
involved
intermediaries
between the tiller of the soil and the State
and for acquisition of their rights, title and
interests and to reform the law relating to
land tenure. The enforcement of the ZA &
LR Act was with a view to simplify land
tenure and bring about other consequent
reforms to fulfill the needs of an egalitarian
society. The abolition of the system of
intermediaries between the State and the
cultivators and the simplification of land
tenure was aimed at paving way for
distribution of land to the weaker sections
of society according to the mandate of the
Constitution of India3.

21. In a primarily agrarian economy
where land continues to be the pivotal to
both income and employment around
which
socio-economic
privileges
and
deprivations revolve land reforms are seen
as one of the principal instruments for
creation of an egalitarian rural society in
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tune with the socialistic spirit, as provided
in the Preamble and under Part IV of the
Constitution. It has also been included in
the Ninth Schedule so as to ensure speedy
and unhindered implementation of various
legislative measures.

22. The restrictions provided for the
transfer of land by scheduled castes under
Section 157-AA have been introduced in
order to address the difficulties faced by
members of scheduled castes and to protect
their rights with regard to the use and
control of land through land reforms by
taking appropriate legislative measures.

23. The restrictions provided under
Section
157-AA
are
founded
on
a
reasonable
basis
inasmuch
as
these
restrictions are in respect of a person
belonging to a scheduled caste who has
become a bhumidhar with transferable
rights in terms of the provisions contained
under Section 131-B. It is for the purpose
of protecting the rights of members of the
scheduled castes that the transfer under
Section 157-AA is permissible only to a
person belonging to a scheduled caste and
that too in the order of preference as
prescribed under sub-section (1) thereof
whereunder the said transfer is to be in an
order of preference being made firstly to a
landless agricultural labourer, thereafter to
a marginal farmer, a small farmer and only
subsequent
thereto
to
others.
The
aforementioned
preferential
order
of
transfer is further subject to the conditions
under sub-section (2).

24. Sub-section (4) which is couched
in a mandatory form contains an injunction
against any transfer without the previous
approval of the Assistant Collector. The
language of sub-section (4) is in wide terms
and it encompasses all transfers under
Section 157-AA including a transfer by a
member of scheduled caste in favour of
another member of scheduled caste also.
Sub-section (4) refers to "transfer under
this section", and therefore, it clearly
embraces in itself all transfers which are
contemplated in terms of Section 157-AA.

25. The issue as to whether a transfer
made by a leaseholder who belongs to a
scheduled caste in favour of a person who
also belongs to a scheduled caste would
require the permission of the Assistant
Collector was taken up in the case of Man
Singh
Vs.
Commissioner,
Bareilly
Mandal & Ors.4 and upon considering the
provisions contained under Section 157-AA
it was stated as follows:-

"5. ...Section 157-AA contains a
clear restriction that a person belonging to
Scheduled
Caste
who
have
become
bhumidhar with transferable rights under
Section 131-B shall have no right to
transfer to any person other than person
belonging to Scheduled Caste. The transfer
under Section 157-AA is permissible only
to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes
in the order of preference as prescribed in
Sub-section (1). Thus, Scheduled Caste
cannot transfer the land in favour of a
person not belonging to Scheduled Caste in
any contingency. Further, this restriction is
on reasonable basis since land which has
been contemplated under Section 157-AA
is a land which is allotted to a person
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste.
The
restriction is more stringent in this subsection since the land is lease land and
grant of agricultural lease is contemplated
under the Act for the specified object and
purpose. Much emphasis has been laid
down by learned Counsel for the petitioner
that Sub-section (1) of Section 157-AA will
not apply when transfer is in favour of
4 All. Dulari & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr.
1259
Scheduled
Caste.
Sub-section
(4)
of
Section 157-AA contains an injunction to
the effect that no transfer under this section
shall be made except with the previous
approval
of
the
Assistant
Collector
concerned. Sub-section (4) is in a very
wide terms when it refers to "transfer under
this section". This clearly means that it
embraces itself all the transfers which are
contemplated in Section 157-AA. Thus,
even if the transfer is by a Scheduled Caste
in favour of a Scheduled Caste, it is fully
covered by the restrictions contained under
Sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA. In case,
the interpretation as put by learned Counsel
for the petitioner to Sub-section (4) of
Section 157-AA is accepted, then the
restrictions put under this Sub-section will
be meaningless and redundant. There is
valid
reason
for
requiring
previous
permission of the Assistant Collector. The
reason which is deciphered from the
scheme of section is, that even the transfer
by a Bhumidhar belonging to Scheduled
Caste to a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste shall be in accordance with the
preference mentioned in Sub-section (1). A
Scheduled Caste who is bhumidhar with
transferable right under Section 131-B has
no free choice of transfer to any Scheduled
Caste of his own choice. The order of
preference given under Sub-section (1) has
its own object and purpose. The object
obviously is that if transfer is made, the
said transfer shall first go to landless
agricultural labourer and thereafter to
marginal farmer. The reason obviously is
that the land being a lease land, the rights
of a lessee have to be regulated in a manner
which may advance the object and purpose
of the Act. Thus, the prior approval of the
Assistant Collector is contemplated which
is obviously to consider and decide as to
whether permission can be accorded and
the transfer which is sought, is in
accordance with the Scheme of Sub-section
(1) of Section 157-AA. If no permission is
required for a land to be transferred by
Scheduled Caste to another Scheduled
Caste, then there will be no stage of inquiry
whether the transfer is in accordance with
the preference given in Sub-section (1).

6. In view of the foregoing
discussions, I am of the considered view that
permission is also required when a transfer
is made by a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste who has become bhumidhar with
transferable right under Section 131-B in
favour of a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste. In the present case, the transfer was
made without any such permission and the
courts below have rightly taken the view
that transfer is void and consequences under
Section 167 of the Act shall follow..."

26. The purpose and object of the
provision being to protect and promote the
rights of the scheduled castes with regard to
the control and use of land by bringing about
land reforms through legislative measures,
the provisions under Section 157-AA have
to be read so as to subserve the intent and
purpose of the enactment.

27. It is beyond question the duty of
courts, in construing statutes to give effect to
the intent of the law making power and to
seek for that intent in every way. The object
and interpretation of construction of statutes
is to ascertain the meaning of the legislature
and to ensure that the provisions are
interpreted so as to subserve that intent.
There is a general presumption that an
enactment has to be given a purposive
interpretation with a construction that best
gives effect to the purpose of the enactment.

28. Reference may be had to the
judgment in R (on the application of
Quintavalle) Vs. Secretary of State for
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Health5, for the proposition that in
construing an enactment effort should be
made to give effect to the legislative
purpose. The observations made in the
judgment are as follows:-

"8. The basic task of the Court is
to ascertain and give effect to the true
meaning of what Parliament has said in the
enactment to be construed. ... Every statute
other than a pure consolidating statute is,
after all, enacted to make some change, or
address some problem, or remove some
blemish, or effect some improvement in the
national life. The Court's task, within the
permissible bounds of interpretation, is to
give effect to Parliament's purpose. So the
controversial provisions should be read in
the context of the statute as a whole, and
the statute as a whole should be read in the
historical context of the situation which led
to its enactment.''

29. Similar observations were made in
Stock Vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.6,
wherein it was held as follows:-

''Words
and phrases
of
the
English language have an extraordinary
range of meaning. This has been a rich
resource in English poetry (which makes
fruitful use of the resonances, overtones
and ambiguities), but it has a concomitant
disadvantage in English law (which seeks
unambiguous precision, with the aim that
every citizen shall know, as exactly as
possible, where he stands under the law).
The first way says Lord Blackburn, of
eliminating legally irrelevant meanings is
to look to the statutory objective. This is
the well-known canon of construction . . .
which goes by the name of ''the rule in
Heydon's Case'' (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7b.
(Nowadays we speak of the ''purposive'' or
''functional'' construction of a statute.)''

30. The Court's function, in view of
the foregoing discussion, would thus be to
construe the words used in an enactment,
so far as possible, in a way which best
gives effect to the purpose of the
enactment.

31. The ZA & LR Act having been
enacted with the objective of bringing
about reforms in the law relating to land
tenure, and the provisions contained under
Section 157-AA having been inserted with
a view to ensure protection of the rights of
the scheduled castes in consonance with
creation of an egalitarian rural society
which would be in tune with the socialistic
spirit of the Constitution the provisions
contained therein have to be interpreted in a
beneficent way so as to subserve the object
of the enactment rather than to negate it.

32. In construing a remedial statute like
the one above, courts are required to give the
terms of the statute the widest amplitude
which its language would permit.

33. The principle of applying a liberal
construction to a remedial legislation has
been emphasised in the Construction of
Statues by Crawford7 in the following
terms:-

"...Remedial statutes, that is, those
which
supply
defects,
and
abridge
superfluities, in the former law, should be
given a liberal construction, in order to
effectuate the purposes of the legislature, or
to advance the remedy intended, or to
accomplish the object sought, and all matters
fairly within the scope of such a statute be
included, even though outside the letter, if
within its spirit or reason."

34. To a similar effect is the
observation
made
by
Blackstone
in
4 All. Dulari & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Anr.
1261
Construction
and
Interpretation
of
Laws8, which is as under:-

"It may also be stated generally
that the courts are more disposed to relax
the severity of this rule (which is really a
rule of strict construction) in the case of
statutes obviously remedial in their nature
or designed to effect a beneficent purpose."

35. In the context of beneficial
construction as a principle of interpretation,
it has been observed in Maxwell on The
Interpretation of Statutes9 as follows:-

"...where they are faced with a
choice between a wide meaning which
caries out what appears to have been the
object of the legislature more fully, and a
narrow meaning which carries it out less
fully or not at all, they will often choose the
former.
Beneficial
construction
is
a
tendency, rather than a rule."

36. The principle of applying a liberal
construction to a beneficial legislation
having a social welfare purpose was
reiterated in the case of Allahabad Bank
& Anr. Vs. All India Allahabad Bank
Retired Employees Association10, and it
was observed as follows:-

"16.
...Remedial
statutes,
in
contradistinction to penal statutes, are
known as welfare, beneficent or social
justice oriented legislations. Such welfare
statutes
always
receive
a
liberal
construction. They are required to be so
construed so as to secure the relief
contemplated by the statute. It is well
settled and needs no restatement at our
hands that labour and welfare legislation
have to be broadly and liberally construed
having due regard to the Directive
Principles of State Policy. The Act with
which we are concerned for the present is
undoubtedly one such welfare oriented
legislation meant to confer certain benefits
upon the employees working in various
establishments in the country."

37. Reference may also be had to the
case of Bharat Singh Vs. Management of
New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New
Delhi
&
Ors.11,
where
purposive
interpretation safeguarding the rights of
have-nots was preferred to a literal
construction in interpreting a welfare
legislation, and it was held as follows:-

"11. ...the court has to evolve the
concept of purposive interpretation which has
found acceptance whenever a progressive
social beneficial legislation is under review.
We share the view that where the words of a
statute are plain and unambiguous effect must
be given to them. Plain words have to be
accepted as such but where the intention of the
legislature is not clear from the words or
where two constructions are possible, it is the
court's duty to discern the intention in the
context of the background in which a
particular Section is enacted. Once such an
intention is ascertained the courts have
necessarily to give the statute a purposeful or a
functional interpretation. Now, it is trite to say
that acts aimed at social amelioration giving
benefits for the have-nots should receive
liberal construction. It is always the duty of the
court to give such a construction to a statute as
would promote the purpose or object of the
Act. A construction that promotes the purpose
of the legislation should be preferred to a
literal construction. A construction which
would defeat the rights of the have-nots and
the underdog and which would lead to
injustice should always be avoided..."

38. The aforementioned legal position
with regard to ambit and scope of the
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
restrictions on transfer by members of
Scheduled Castes becoming bhumidhar
under Section 131-B is contained under
Section 157-AA has been considered in
extenso in a recent judgement of this court
in Surajmal vs. State of U.P. and
others12.

39. The restrictions contained under
Section 157-AA and the requirement of the
permission of the Assistant Collector in a
case where transfer is sought to be made by
a person belonging to Scheduled Caste
having
become
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights under Section 131-B, in
favour of a person who also belongs to a
Scheduled Caste, having been held to be
mandatory
any
transfer
made
in
contravention thereof shall by virtue of the
provisions contained under Section 166 be
rendered void and the consequences of such
a void transfer, as provided under Section
167, would ensue.

40. In the case at hand, the land in
question having been transferred by a person
who was a member of Scheduled Caste and
had become a bhumidhar with transferable
rights under Section 131-B, to the petitioner
no.1 herein, also a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste, the restrictions contained
under Section 157-AA would be fully
attracted as also the provisions contained
under sub-section (4) thereof whereunder no
transfer under the section is permissible
except with the previous approval of the
Assistant Collector concerned.

41. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the transferor and
the transferee both being members of
Scheduled Caste, the previous approval of
the Assistant Collector was not required for
the purpose, is thus without basis and cannot
be accepted.

42. The rationale behind requiring the
previous approval of the Assistant Collector
for any transfer under Section 157-AA is
not difficult to decipher since as per the
terms of the scheme of the provision, even
a transfer by a bhumidhar belonging to a
scheduled caste to a person also belonging
to a scheduled caste is to be in accord with
the order of preference under sub-section
(1).

43. It therefore follows that a member
of a scheduled caste who has obtained the
status of a bhumidhar with transferable
rights under Section 131-B also does not
have a free choice to transfer the land to
any member of the scheduled caste. The
transfer which is permissible is to be as per
the preferences prescribed. The order of
preference under sub-section (1) and subsection (2) are clearly to subserve the
purpose of the legislative enactment which
is for furtherance of the objective of land
reforms and to protect the vulnerable
section of the society from injustice and
exploitation.

44. The prior approval of the
Assistant Collector as required under subsection (4) is thus contemplated so as to
ensure that the permission which is sought
is in accord with the scheme of the
provision under the Section 157-AA and as
per the order of preference provided under
sub-section (1).

45. The transfer of the land in
question having admittedly being made
without the previous approval of the
Assistant Collector concerned, the same
would be hit by provision contained under
sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA and such
transfer being in contravention of the
section, the same was rendered void by
virtue of the mandate under Section 166
4 All. Mohammed Ali Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1263
and the necessary consequences under
Section 167 were liable to follow.

46. The recommendation made as per
the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the
Additional Collection for vesting of the
land in the State Government, is in accord
with the provisions contained under subclause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 167,
and there is no infirmity in the said order.
The subsequent order dated 16.12.2021
passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Allahabad rejecting the revision of the
petitioners and affirming the order of the
Additional Collector also cannot be faulted
with for the same reason.

47. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A1263
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 9235 of 2012

Mohammed Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Saxena, Sri S.S. Sisodiya, Sri P.N.
Saxena (Sr. Advocate), Sri R.K. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I. (2012/2930), Sri Anand
Prakash Srivastava, Sri Dashrath Lal Yadav,
Sri K.D. Tripathi, Sri Nitin Raj Singh, Sri
Tripathi B.G. Bhai, Ved Mani Tiwari

A. Civil Law - Administration of Evacuee
Property Act, 1950-Sections 7 & 8 - Under
U.P. Ordinance No.01 of 1949 any property in
which an evacuee had any right or interest
automatically vested in the custodian and any
property which purports to have vested with
evacuee property in the custodian continued to
be so vested under the subsequent ordinances
and by virtue of Sections 8(2) and 8(2-A) of the
Act 1950 shall be deemed to have been validly
vested with the custodian and shall also be
deemed to be evacuee property declared as
such within the meaning of 1950. No order
declaring the property as evacuee property and
no notice as referred in Section 7(1) of the Act,
1950 was required in relation to properties
which had vested as evacuee properties with
the custodian under U.P. Ordinance No.01 of
1949. Passing an order or issuing a declaration
that the property was evacuee property was not
a condition precedent for vesting and the mere
fact that a person who had any right or interest
in the property was a evacuee as defined u/S
2© of the Ordinance No.01 of 1949 resulted in
automatic vesting of the property in the
custodian and the property is deemed to have
been declared as evacuee property for the
purposes of Act, 1950. Further, the failure of the
custodian to issue a notice u/S 6 of U.P.
Ordinance No.01 of 1949 or u/S 7(3) of the Act,
1950 notifying the property as evacuee property
by publication either in official gazette or by
other means prescribed, has no effect on
validity of such vesting.

B. Civil Law - U.P. Ordinance No.01 of
1949 - Administration of Evacuee Property
Act, 1950 - Sections 34 & 49 - Provides that
all records prepared or maintained under these
provisions shall be deemed to be public
documents within the meaning of Indian
Evidence Act and shall be presumed to be
genuine unless contrary is proved.

C.