# Meghai & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 392
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-08
- **Case number:** Writ Petition Nos. 47504 of 2017, 50821 of 2017, 50824 of 2017, 51857 of 2017
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meghai-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45597
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Object - The
enactment having been made in the interests
of the community with the object to ensure a
more equitable distribution of land and to
provide land for the landless agricultural
labourers to ensure increased agricultural
production and for other public purposes as
best to subserve the common good - The
provisions of the Act have to be read in a
manner so as to subserve the intent and
purpose of the enactment. (Para 14)
B. Civil Law-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 195
and 198 - UPICLH Act, 1960 - Section 27
- Surplus land - Order of Preference - Power
of Collector - A conjoint reading of the
statutory provisions indicates that any land
which remains surplus after making provisions
for settlement of land with the Gaon Sabha
under Section 27(1) and permitting the use
thereof for other public purposes under Section
25, is to be settled by the Collector in
accordance with the order of preference and
subject to the limits specified respectively in
subsections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the
1950 Act - The order of preference provided
under Section 198(1) provides for allotment in
favour of landless agricultural labourers of the
specified categories in the order of preference
prescribed under clause (c) thereof. (Para 10
and 11)
C. Civil Law-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 27 (3)
and (4) - Cancellation of lease - The
petitioners were not eligible for grant of lease
inasmuch as they did not belong to the class of
landless agricultural labourers - They could not
have been admitted to the land as per the
order of preference in accordance with the
provisions contained under Section 195 r/w
Section 198 of the 1950 Act and as such the
settlement of the surplus land under subsection
(3) of Section 27 was irregular - The land in
question being already in occupation of
landless agricultural labourers belonging to
4 All. Meghai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393
scheduled castes, the land could not be said to
be vacant and the same could not have been
allotted to the petitioners. (Para 22)
D. Interpretation of Statute - The principle
of construing a remedial statute so as to
effectuate the purposes of the legislature and
to accomplish the object sought - 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 . (Para 19 and 20)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-

## Text

392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
59962 of 2012 and 59964 of 2012 on the
ground of gross delay and laches.

48. So far as the prayers made in the
Writ Petition Nos. 47504 of 2017, 50821
of 2017, 50824 of 2017, 51857 of 2017
and 57562 of 2017 are concerned, as the
matter is seized with the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and there is a request to High Court
for not to deal with such cases relating to
the interpretation of or concerning Section
24 of Act of 2013. (State of Haryana Vs.
M/s. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation
Ltd: (2018) 3 SCC 585). Accordingly, we
are not passing any order on these
petitions at this stage.

49. Registrar General of this Court is
directed to take appropriate steps to
comply with the directions made in
paragraph 32 of this judgment regarding
direction
to
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation
to
conduct
preliminary
enquiry and register First Information
Report.

50. List leading Writ Petition i.e.
31586 of 2016 on 11.5.2020.
----------
(2020)02ILR A392

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2020

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

Writ C No. 32914 of 2008

Meghai & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.N. Pathak, Sri Pawan Giri
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Kumar, Sri Awadhesh
Mishra

A. Civil Law-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Object - The
enactment having been made in the interests
of the community with the object to ensure a
more equitable distribution of land and to
provide land for the landless agricultural
labourers to ensure increased agricultural
production and for other public purposes as
best to subserve the common good - The
provisions of the Act have to be read in a
manner so as to subserve the intent and
purpose of the enactment. (Para 14)
B. Civil Law-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 195
and 198 - UPICLH Act, 1960 - Section 27
- Surplus land - Order of Preference - Power
of Collector - A conjoint reading of the
statutory provisions indicates that any land
which remains surplus after making provisions
for settlement of land with the Gaon Sabha
under Section 27(1) and permitting the use
thereof for other public purposes under Section
25, is to be settled by the Collector in
accordance with the order of preference and
subject to the limits specified respectively in
subsections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the
1950 Act - The order of preference provided
under Section 198(1) provides for allotment in
favour of landless agricultural labourers of the
specified categories in the order of preference
prescribed under clause (c) thereof. (Para 10
and 11)
C. Civil Law-U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 27 (3)
and (4) - Cancellation of lease - The
petitioners were not eligible for grant of lease
inasmuch as they did not belong to the class of
landless agricultural labourers - They could not
have been admitted to the land as per the
order of preference in accordance with the
provisions contained under Section 195 r/w
Section 198 of the 1950 Act and as such the
settlement of the surplus land under subsection
(3) of Section 27 was irregular - The land in
question being already in occupation of
landless agricultural labourers belonging to
4 All. Meghai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393
scheduled castes, the land could not be said to
be vacant and the same could not have been
allotted to the petitioners. (Para 22)
D. Interpretation of Statute - The principle
of construing a remedial statute so as to
effectuate the purposes of the legislature and
to accomplish the object sought - 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 . (Para 19 and 20)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-
1. 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)

2. 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. Heard Sri Pawan Giri, holding
brief of Sri B.N.Pathak, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri Amit Manohar,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

2. Challenge in the present petition is
to an order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the
Additional
Commissioner(Administration),Vindhyach
al Mandal, Mirzapur in Case No. 12/333
of
2007
(Ghurau
Vs.
Meghai)
in
proceedings under Section 27 (4) of the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land
Holdings Act, 19601, whereby the lease
granted in favour of the petitioners has
been cancelled and the land in question
has been directed to be reverted to the
State Government.

3. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the lease had
been granted to the petitioners after
completion of the requisite procedural
formalities and that the order impugned
has been passed without giving proper
opportunity to the petitioners and as such
the same is legally unsustainable.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the State
respondents has supported the order passed by
the Additional Commissioner by stating that
the petitioners did not belong to the category of
persons eligible for allotment of the ceiling
surplus land and accordingly the proceedings
for cancellation of allotment were rightly
initiated. Placing reliance upon the order-sheet
of the case, a copy whereof has been annexed
as annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed
by the State respondents, it is submitted that
the order has been passed after due notice and
opportunity to the petitioners and as such the
same cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.
It has also been pointed out that the land in
question being not vacant at the relevant point
of time the same could not have been allotted
to the petitioners.

5. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions the relevant statutory provisions
may be adverted to.

6. The disposal and settlement of
land declared surplus in proceedings under
the Ceiling Act is provided for under
Chapter IV thereof. For ease of reference,
Section 27 of the Ceiling Act which
pertains to the settlement of surplus land is
being extracted below:-

"Section 27 - Settlement of
surplus land - (1) The State Government
shall settle out of the surplus land in a
village in which no land is available for
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
community purposes or in which the land
as available is less than 15 acres with the
Gram Sabha of that village so, however,
that the total land in the village available
for
community
purposes
after
such
settlement does not exceed 15 acres. The
land so settled with the Gram Sabha shall
be used for planting trees, growing fodder
or for such other community purposes, as
may be prescribed.

(2) The State Government may
either settle any surplus land in accordance
with sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or
use or permit its use in accordance with
Section 25 or manage or otherwise deal
with it in such manner as it thinks fit.

(3) Any remaining surplus land
shall be settled by the Collector in
accordance with the order of preference
and subject to the limits, specified
respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of
Section
198
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950.

(4) The Commissioner may of
his own motion and shall, on the
application of any aggrieved person
enquire into such settlement and if he is
satisfied that the settlement is irregular he
may after notice to the person in whose
favour such settlement is made to show
cause--

(i) cancel the settlement and the
lease, if any, and thereupon, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law or in any
instrument, the rights, title and interest of the
person in whose favour such settlement was
made or lease executed or any person claiming
through him in such land shall cease, and such
land shall revert to the State Government; and

(ii) direct that every person holding
or retaining possession thereof may be evicted,
and may for that purpose use or cause to be
used such force as may be necessary.

(5) Every order passed by the
Commissioner under sub-section (4) shall
be final.

(6) The Commissioner acting of
his own motion under subsection (4) may
issue notice, and an application under that
sub-section may be made,--

(a) in the case of any settlement
made or lease granted before November
10, 1980, before the expiry of a period of
seven years from the said date; and

(b) in the case of any settlement
made or lease granted on or after the said
date, before the expiry of a period of five
years from the date of such settlement or
lease or up to November 10, 1987,
whichever be later.

(6-A) Where any surplus land
has been settled by the Collector under
sub-section (3), and any person other than
the person in whose favour such settlement
was made is in occupation of such land in
contravention of the provisions of this Act,
the Collector may, of his own motion and
shall on the application of the person in
whose favour such settlement was made,
put him in possession of such land and
may for that purpose use or cause to be
used such force as he considers necessary.

(6-B) Where any person, after
being
evicted
under
this
section,
reoccupies the land or any part thereof
without lawful authority, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years but which
shall not be less than three months and
also with fine which may extend to three
thousand rupees :

Provided
that
the
Court
convicting the accused may while passing
the sentence direct that the whole or such
portion of the fine that may be recovered
as the Court considers proper, be paid to
the person in whose favour such settlement
4 All. Meghai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
was made as damages for use and
occupation.

(6-C) Where in any proceeding
under sub-section (6-B), the Court at any
stage after cognizance of the case has been
taken is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise-
-

(a) that the accused is in
occupation of the land to which such
proceeding relates, in contravention of the
provisions of the Act; and

(b) that the person in whose
favour such settlement was made is
entitled to the possession of such land ;

the Court may summarily evict
the accused from such land pending the
final determination of the case and may
put the person in whose favour such
settlement was made in possession of such
land.

(6-D)
Where
in
any
such
proceeding, the accused is convicted the
interim order passed under sub-section (6C) shall be confirmed by the Court.

(6-E)
Where
in
any
such
proceedings the accused is acquitted or
discharged and the Court is satisfied that
the person so acquitted or discharged is
entitled to be put back in possession over
such land, the Court shall, on the
application of such person direct that
delivery of possession be made to him.

(6-F) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable
under
sub-section
(6-B)
shall
be
cognizable and non-bailable and may be
tried summarily.

(6-G) For the purpose of speedy
trial of offences under this section, the
State Government may, in consultation
with
the
High
Court,
by
notification/constitute,
special
courts
consisting of an officer not below the rank
of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which shall,
subject to the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, exercise in
relation to such offences the powers of a
Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

(7) The State Government may,
by a general or special order to be
published in the manner prescribed,
declare that as from a date to be specified
in this behalf, all surplus land situate in a
circle which could not be settled under the
provisions of this Act, shall vest in the
Gram Sabha concerned, and the provisions
of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, shall mutatis mutandis apply in
relation to such vesting."

7. In terms of sub-section (3) of
Section 27 of the Ceiling Act the land
remaining surplus after providing for the
use thereof for community purposes by
way of settlement with the Gaon Sabha in
terms of sub-section (1) and for use for
other public purposes in accordance with
Section 25, is to be settled by the Collector
in accordance with the order of preference
and subject to the limits specified
respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of
Section
198
of
the
U.P.Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 19502.

8. Section 198 of the 1950 Act
prescribes the order of preference to be
followed in admitting persons to land
under Sections 195 and 197 and the same
is reproduced herein below :-

"198. Order of preference in
admitting
persons
to
land
under
Sections 195 and 197. - (1) In the
admission of persons to land as bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights or asami
under Section 195 or Section 197
(hereinafter in this section referred to as
allotment of land) the Land Management
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee shall, subject to any order
made by a Court under Section 178
observe the following order of preference :

(a)
landless
widow,
sons,
unmarried daughters or parents residing in
the circle of a person who has lost his life
by enemy action while in active service in
the Armed Forces of the Union;

(b) a person residing in the
circle, who has become wholly disabled by
enemy action while in active service in the
Armed Forces of the Union;

(c)
a
landless
agricultural
labourer residing in the circle and
belonging to any one of the following
categories in the order of preference:-

(i) persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(ii) persons belonging to Other
Backward Classes;

(iii) persons belonging to the
general category living below poverty
line.;

(d)
any
other
landless
agricultural labourer residing in the circle;

(e)
a
bhumidhar
or
asami
residing in the circle and holding land less
than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres);

(f) a landless person residing in
the circle who is retired, released or
discharged from service other than service
as an officer in the Armed Forces of the
Union;

(g) a landless freedom fighter
residing in the circle who has not been
granted political pension; and

(h)
any
other
landless
agricultural labourer, not residing in the
circle, but residing in the Nyaya Panchayat
circle referred to in Section 42 of the
United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
and belonging to any of the following
categories in the order of preference:-

(i) persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

(ii) persons belonging to Other
Backward Classes;

(iii) persons belonging to the
general category living below poverty line.

Explanation. - For the purposes
of this sub-section-

(1) 'landless' refers to a person
who or whose spouse or minor children
hold no land as bhumidhar, or asami and
also held no land as such within two years
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
allotment; and

(2) 'agricultural labourer' means
a person whose main source of livelihood
is agricultural labour;

(3) 'Freedom-Fighter' means an
inhabitant of Uttar Pradesh who is certified
by the Collector to have participated in the
National struggle for freedom during the
period between 1930 and 1947 and who in
connection with such participation, is
similarly certified to have-

(a) undergone a sentence of
imprisonment for a period of at least two
months; or

(b) been in jail for a period of at
least three months by way of preventive
detention or as an undertrial; or

(c) been subjected to at least ten
stripes in execution of a sentence of
whipping; or

(d) been declared an absconding
offender; or

(e) suffered a bullet injury;

and includes a person who was
involved in the Peshawar-Khand or who
was a recognised member of the Indian
National
Army
or
former
India
Independence League; but does not
include a person who was granted pardon
on account of his tendering apology or
expressing regret for such participation.

(4) 'Other Backward Classes'
means the Backward Classes of citizens
specified in Schedule I of the Uttar
4 All. Meghai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P.
Act No. 4 of 1994).

(5) 'Persons of General Category
living below poverty line' means such persons
as may be determined from time to time by the
State Government.

(2) (Omitted by U.P.Act No. 30 of
1975).

(3) The land that may be allotted
under sub-section (1) shall not exceed-

(i) in the case of a person falling
under Clause (e) such area as together with the
land held by him as bhumidhar or asami
immediately before the allotment would
aggregate to 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres);

(ii) in any other case, an area of 1.26
hectares (3.125 acres).

(4) The Collector may of his own
motion and shall on the application of any
person aggrieved by an allotment of land
inquire in the manner prescribed into such
allotment and if he is satisfied that the
allotment is irregular, he may cancel the
allotment and the lease, if any.

(4-A) (Omitted by U.P.Act No. 27
of 2004 (w.e.f. 23.08.2004).

(5) No order for cancellation of an
allotment or lease shall be made under subsection (4), unless a notice to show cause is
served on the person in whose favour the
allotment or lease was made or on his legal
representatives :

Provided that no such notice shall
be
necessary
in
proceedings
for
the
cancellation of any allotment or lease where
such proceedings were pending before the
Collector or any other Court or authority on
August 18, 1980.

(6) Every notice to show cause
mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued-

(a) in the case of an allotment of
land made before November 10, 1980,
(hereinafter referred to as the said date), before
the expiry of a period of seven years from the
said date; and

(b) in the case of an allotment of
land made on or after the said date, before
the expiry of a period of five years from
the date of such allotment or lease or up to
November 10, 1987, which ever be later.

(7) Where the allotment or lease
of any land is cancelled under sub-section
(4) the following consequences shall
ensue, namely-

(i) the right, title and interest of
the allottee or lessee or any other person
claiming through him in such land shall
case and the land shall revert to the Gaon
Sabha;

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

(8) Every order made by the
Collector under sub-section (4) shall,
subject to the provisions of Section 333, be
final.

(9) Where any person has been
admitted to any land specified in Section
132 as a sirdar or bhumidhar with nontransferable rights at any time before the
said date and such admission was made
with the previous approval of the Assistant
Collector-in-charge of the sub-division in
respect of the permissible area mentioned
in sub-section (3), then notwithstanding
anything contained in other provisions of
this Act or in the terms and conditions of
the allotment or lease under which such
person was admitted to that land, the
following consequences shall, with effect
from the said date ensure, namely-

(a) the allottee or lessee shall be
deemed to be an asami of such land and
shall be deemed to be holding the same
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from year to year and the allotment or
lease of the land to the extent mentioned
above shall not be deemed to be irregular
for the purposes of sub-section (4);

(b) the proceedings, if any,
pending on the said date before the
Collector or any other Court or authority
for the cancellation of the allotment or
lease of such land, shall abate."

9. Section 195 which provides for
allotment of land is also being extracted
below :-

"195. Admission to land. - The
Land Management Committee with the
previous
approval
of
the
Assistant
Collector-in-charge of the sub-division
shall have the right to admit any person as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to
any land (other than land being in any of
the classes mentioned in Section 132)
where-

(a) the land is vacant land;

(b) the land is vested in the Gaon
Sabha under Section 117; or

(c) the land has come into the
possession of Land Management Committee
under Section 194 or under any other
provisions of this Act."

10. A conjoint reading of the
aforementioned statutory provisions indicates
that any land which remains surplus after
making provisions for settlement of land with
the Gaon Sabha under sub-section (1) of
Section 27 and permitting the use thereof for
other public purposes under Section 25, is to
be settled by the Collector in accordance with
the order of preference and subject to the limits
specified respectively in sub-sections (1) and
(3) of Section 198 of the 1950 Act.

11. The order of preference provided
under sub-section (1) of Section 198 provides
for allotment in favour of landless agricultural
labourers of the specified categories in the
order of preference prescribed under clause (c)
thereof.

12. Section 195 provides for admission
of land other than land being in any of the
classes mentioned in Section 132 where: (a)
the land is vacant land; (b) the land is vested in
the Gaon Sabha under Section 117; or (c) the
land has come into the possession of Land
Management Committee under Section 194 or
under any other provisions of the Act.

13. Sub-section (4) of Section 27 of
the Ceiling Act provides that the
Commissioner may of his own motion
and shall on the application of any
aggrieved person enquire into such
settlement and if he is satisfied that the
settlement is irregular he may after
notice to the person in whose favour
such settlement is made to show cause
cancel the settlement and the lease and
as a consequence thereof the land shall
revert to the State Government.

14. The U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
was promulgated as an Act to provide
for imposition of ceiling on land
holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh
and certain other matters connected
therewith. The enactment having been
made in the interests of the community
with the object to ensure a more
equitable distribution of land and to
provide
land
for
the
landless
agricultural
labourers
to
ensure
increased agricultural production and
for other public purposes as best to
subserve
the
common
good,
the
provisions of the Act have to be read in
a manner so as to subserve the intent
and purpose of the enactment.
4 All. Meghai & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399

15. Land being pivotal to both
income and employment around which
socio-economic
privileges
and
deprivations revolve the distribution of
ceiling surplus land is seen as an
instrument of land reforms aimed at
creation of an egalitarian rural society. The
enactment has been included in the Ninth
Schedule of the Constitution of India so as
to
ensure
speedy
and
unhindered
implementation of the various legislative
measures.

16. Imposition of ceiling and
distribution of ceiling surplus land being
therefore primarily concerned with the
distributive aspect of land reforms aimed
at reducing ineqalities of land owner-ship
the allotment of ceiling surplus land is to
be made in a manner to subserve the
objects and purposes of the enactment so
that the distribution of land is made to the
real beneficiaries.

17. 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.

18. 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.''

19. 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.

20. The principle of construing a
remedial statute so as to effectuate the
purposes
of
the
legislature
and
to
accomplish the object sought 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."
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. 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 havenots 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..."

22. In the instant case the order passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
has
specifically recorded that the petitioners were
not eligible for grant of lease inasmuch as they
did not belong to the class of landless
agricultural labourers they could not have been
admitted to the land as per the order of
preference in accordance with the provisions
contained under Section 195 read with Section
198 of the 1950 Act and as such the settlement
of the surplus land under sub-section (3) of
Section 27 was irregular. It has further been
recorded that the land in question being already
in occupation of landless agricultural labourers
belonging to scheduled castes, the land could
not be said to be vacant and the same could not
have been allotted to the petitioners.

23. The principal contention which is
sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners is
that the order has been passed without notice and
opportunity to the petitioners also does not inspire
confidence inasmuch as the order-sheet of the
case which is on record as part of the counter
affidavit filed by the State respondents clearly
shows that the order impugned has been passed
after due notice and opportunity to the petitioners.

24. Counsel for the petitioners has not been
able to demonstrate from the records that the
petitioners belong to the eligible criteria so as to
be entitled for allotment of the ceiling surplus
land.

25. No other ground has been urged.

26. No material error or irregularity has
been pointed out in the order impugned so as to
warrant interference.

27. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A400

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.