# Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, (2019) 4 SCC 307

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 257
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18035 of 2007
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/executive-engineer-v-kuberbhai-kanjibhai-2019-4-scc-307-45585
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Preamble - Part IV
- Schedule IX - Land reform - 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 tune with the socialistic spirit, as provided
in the Preamble and under Part IV of the
Constitution.

B. Civil Law-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Object - It was
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 (Para 18)

C. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 -
Sections 157-A and 157-AA - Distinction
clarified - 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 157AA is 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. (Para 14)

D. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 -
Sections 157-AA (1) and (5) - Validity of
Transfer by a person of Scheduled Caste -
Limitation of period of 10 years - No further
transfer is permissible by a transferee of a land
under subsection (1) before the expiry of a
period of ten years from the date of transfer in
his favour. (Para 36)
E. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 -
Sections 157-AA (1) and (4) - Prior
approval - Order of Preference - Validity of
Transfer by a person of Scheduled Caste - 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
157AA and as per the order of preference
provided under subsection (1). (Para 38 and
40)
F. Interpretation of Statute - Object -
Purposive construction - The object 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 construction with a construction
that best gives effect to the purpose of the
enactment - 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. (Para 25 and
30)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

2 All. Surajmal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
 Executive
Engineer
vs.
Kuberbhai
Kanjibhai, (2019) 4 SCC 307.

24. The Labour Court, while writing
the impugned award has completely
ignored from consideration this very
pertinent aspect of the matter, though it
was raised as a plea before it on behalf of
the Employers. Now, the workman is no
more and this petition, directed as it is
against the impugned award is defended
by his legal heirs. There is no issue about
reinstatement. The workman, however,
was reinstated in service pending this
petition, in consequence of the conditional
stay order passed by this Court on
01.04.1991. He served in the respondent's
establishment from 29.10.1991 until his
death on 26.04.2010. While he was in
service, he had received emoluments as a
Routine Grade Clerk by dint of the interim
order passed by this Court. The workman
has rendered services to the Employer,
under whatever circumstances, and that
fact is not in dispute. In view of the said
circumstances, notwithstanding the fact
that the impugned award cannot be
sustained, there is no basis to order
recovery from the workman's heirs, or so
to speak, from the estate of the workman
in the hands of his heirs.

25. It goes without saying also that
recovery proceedings initiated by the
workman through an application made on
28.01.2010 under Section 6H of the Act
(incorrectly described as Section 33 (C) in
the record of proceedings) before the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, U.P.
Kanpur, would fall with the impugned
award.

26. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
award dated 23.08.1990 passed by the
Presiding Officer-II, U.P. Kanpur in
Adjudication Case No. 56 of 1988,
published
on
20.11.1990,
is
hereby
quashed. Costs shall go easy.

27. The Office is directed to return
the Labour Court records forthwith to the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, U.P.,
Kanpur Nagar.

28. Let a copy of this order shall also
be certified to the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II, U.P., Kanpur forthwith.
----------
(2020)02ILR A257

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020

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

Writ C No. 18035 of 2007

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.P. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Preamble - Part IV
- Schedule IX - Land reform - 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 tune with the socialistic spirit, as provided
in the Preamble and under Part IV of the
Constitution.

B. Civil Law-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Object - It was
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 (Para 18)

C. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 -
Sections 157-A and 157-AA - Distinction
clarified - 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 157AA is 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. (Para 14)

D. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 -
Sections 157-AA (1) and (5) - Validity of
Transfer by a person of Scheduled Caste -
Limitation of period of 10 years - No further
transfer is permissible by a transferee of a land
under subsection (1) before the expiry of a
period of ten years from the date of transfer in
his favour. (Para 36)
E. Civil Law-U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 -
Sections 157-AA (1) and (4) - Prior
approval - Order of Preference - Validity of
Transfer by a person of Scheduled Caste - 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
157AA and as per the order of preference
provided under subsection (1). (Para 38 and
40)
F. Interpretation of Statute - Object -
Purposive construction - The object 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 construction with a construction
that best gives effect to the purpose of the
enactment - 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. (Para 25 and
30)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

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

2. R (on the application of Quintavalle) Vs.
Secretary of State for Health (2003) UKHL 13,
(2003) 2 AC 687, (2003) 2 All ER 113 (UK
House of Lords)

3. Stock Vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. (1978) 1
WLR 231 (UK House of Lords)

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

5. Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi & Ors. (1986) 2
SCC 614

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The present petition has been
filed seeking to challenge the order
dated
13.04.2004
passed
by
the
Additional
District
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad whereby the application
filed
by
the
petitioner
seeking
permission for transfer of certain land
parcels had been turned down and also
the order dated 11.10.2006 whereby
the revision filed against the said order
has
also
been
rejected
by
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Meerut
Division, Meerut.

2. Contention on behalf of the
petitioner is that permission had been
sought under Section 157-A of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 19501 for the purposes of transfer of
2 All. Surajmal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
land by the petitioner who belongs to a
scheduled caste, to a person not belonging
to a scheduled caste.

3. It is stated that the land held by the
petitioner on the date of the application
was 2.656 hectares, and even after the
proposed transfer for which permission
was being sought the land remaining with
the petitioner would be 1.698 hectares. It
is further submitted that the land in
question having not been received by the
petitioner by way of lease or by virtue of
the provisions contained under Section
122-B (4-F) of the ZA & LR Act the
orders impugned rejecting his application
for permission are erroneous and are
legally unsustainable.

4. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents has submitted that the plots in
question bearing khasra no.412/1, area
0.266 hectares and khasra no.512, area
0.487 hectares were originally recorded in
the names of Nanak Chand, Jai Singh,
Jaipal and Kanwarpal, respectively, as
bhumidhars with non-transferable rights.

5. It has been pointed out that these
persons
had
been
declared
to
be
bhumidhars with transferable rights in
terms of an order dated 29.12.1997 and
they in turn had transferred the land
parcels in favour of the petitioner and
accordingly in view of the bar contained
under sub-section (5) of Section 157-AA
of the ZA & LR Act the petitioner had no
further right to transfer the land before the
expiry of a period of ten years from the
date of transfer in his favour, and for the
said reason the permission sought by the
petitioner had been declined. It is
contended that the orders impugned do not
suffer from any illegality and the petition
is liable to be dismissed.

6. Counsel for the parties have been
heard.

7. The question which falls for
consideration in the present case is with
regard to the nature of the rights of a
transferee under sub-section (1) of Section
157-AA to further transfer the land by way
of sale or otherwise and the restrictions
thereon.

8. In order to appreciate the
controversy
the
relevant
statutory
provisions may be referred to.

9. 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
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.
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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."

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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
131-B.--(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 subsection 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 subsection 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 subsection in the same order of preference :--

(a) first, to the resident of the
village where the land is situate;

(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
2 All. Surajmal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
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."

13. 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 subsection (1) of the said section.

14. 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 157AA 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 subsection (4) is expressed in wide terms and
it
covers
all
transfers
which
are
contemplated under Section 157-AA,
including a transfer which is to be made by
a scheduled caste in favour of a scheduled
caste also.

17. The restrictions provided for
under Section 157-AA were made subject
to a further condition with the insertion of
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. Sub-section (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."

18. 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.

19. 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
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.

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. Sub-section (4) which is couched
in
a
mandatory
form
provides
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.
2 All. Surajmal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263

23. 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 fell for consideration in the case
of
Man Singh
Vs.
Commissioner,
Bareilly Mandal & Ors. 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
sub-section 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
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
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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..."

24. 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.

25. 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 construction with a construction
that best gives effect to the purpose of the
enactment.

26. Reference may be had to the
judgment in R (on the application of
Quintavalle) Vs. Secretary of State for
Health, 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.''

27. Similar observations were made
in Stock Vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.,
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.)''

28. The Court's function, in view of
the foregoing discussion, would thus be to
2 All. Surajmal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
construe the words used in an enactment,
so far as possible, in a way which best
gives effect to the purpose of the
enactment.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. The principle of applying a
liberal
construction
to
a
remedial
legislation has been emphasised in the
Construction of Statues by Crawford 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."

32. To a similar effect is the
observation
made
by
Blackstone
in
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."

33. In the context of beneficial
construction
as
a
principle
of
interpretation, it has been observed in
Maxwell on The Interpretation of
Statutes 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."

34. 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 Association,
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
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

35. Reference may also be had to
the
case
of
Bharat
Singh
Vs.
Management
of
New
Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi &
Ors., 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..."

36. In the case at hand, the
petitioner being a transferee of land
having received the same by way of a
sale from persons who had become
bhumidhars with transferable rights
under Section 131-B the restrictions
contained
under
Section
157-AA
would be fully attracted as also the
provision contained in terms of subsection (5) thereof whereunder no
further transfer is permissible by a
transferee of a land under sub-section
(1) before the expiry of a period of ten
years from the date of transfer in his
favour.

37. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the land having been
purchased by sale-deeds from the original
tenure holders there was no requirement
for complying with the provisions under
Section 157-AA, is thus wholly without
basis and cannot be accepted.

38. 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).

39. It therefore follows that a
member of a scheduled caste who has
2 All. Piyush Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
267
 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 sub-section (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.

40. 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).

41. The application of the petitioner
seeking permission for transfer of the land
parcels having been turned down for the
reason that the permission sought was hit
by sub-section (5) which creates a bar on a
transferee of land under sub-section (1) to
further transfer the land by way of sale or
otherwise before the expiry of a period of
ten years from the date of transfer in his
favour, the orders impugned cannot be
faulted with and the challenge sought to be
raised in the present petition is legally
unsustainable.

42. Counsel for the petitioner has not
been able to dispute the aforementioned
legal
position
with
regard
to
the
restrictions contained under Section 157AA and in particular the restriction with
regard to a transfer by a transferee within a
period of ten years from the date of
transfer in his favour.

43. No other ground was urged.

44. The writ petition thus lacks merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A267

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 22848 of 2019

Piyush Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gaurav Pundir

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, Sri
Om Prakash Yadav, Sri Rijwan Ali Akhtar,
Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, Sri Ajit Kumar
Singh

A. Constitution of India - Fundamental
Rights - Nature - The text of the
Constitution, is a conceptual philosophy of
fundamental rights, and not an exhaustive
guide to fundamental rights - The text of the
Constitution is fixed, fundamental rights are
always evolving. This is the essence of
constitutional law jurisprudence - Evolution of
constitutional law rights are guided and
controlled by the text of the constitution, long
settled judicial principles of interpretation of
the constitution, and judicial precedents in
point - The march of law is also assisted by
consensus of values, in the comity of civilized
nations. (Para 40 and 41)

B. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Human dignity - Means and Scope -
Human dignity made a decisive contribution in
the development of the rights of life and