JUDGMENT S. ALI Ahmad: J. These two writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. no. 1855 of 1975 is the father of the three petitioners in C. W. J. C. no. 2011 of 1975. The prayer in both the applications is to quash the order dated 3rd April, 75 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhalbhum at Jamshedpur by which he ordered to seize 125 quintals and 75 Killograms of paddy under the Bihar Foodgrains (Declaration of Stook by Cultivators & Requirement to Sell) Order, 1974 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Order'). The order has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ applications. The appellate order which confirmed the order contained in Annexure 3 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum and is Annexure 4 to C.W.J.C. no. 1855 of 1975, while it is Annexure 5 to C.W.J.C. no. 2011 of 1975. The prayer in the two petitions is to quash the aforesaid two orders (Annexure 3 and 4 to C.W.J.C. no. 1855 of 1975 and Annexure 3 and 5 to C.W.J.C. no. 2011 of 1975) 2. Prithvi Nath Sao, petitioner in C.W.J.C, No. No. 1855 of 1975 has three sons, Ram Ranjan Shaw, Manmath Nath Shaw and Manoranjan Shaw, petitioners, in C. W. J. C. No. 2011 of 1975. According to them, Prithvi Nath Sao possessed 40, 65 acres of land. In the year 1961, he gave 39, 71 acres of land to his three sons by a registered deed. It is said that by virtue of the aforesaid registered deed the three sons came in possession of distinct portion of lands allotted to their share. Further according to the case made out by the petitioners, the three sons have separate bullocks, yoke, etc. and they cultivate their lands separately. Their claim is that rent-receipts are also being issued in the name of the three sons according to their shares. 3. Admittedly on 30. 12. 1974, the Block Development Officer, Dumaria issued a notice which was addressed to Prithvi Nath Sao alone asking him to declare stock of food grains possessed by him within a week. A copy of the said notice has been mar ked as Annexure 1 to this writ application. 3. Admittedly on 30. 12. 1974, the Block Development Officer, Dumaria issued a notice which was addressed to Prithvi Nath Sao alone asking him to declare stock of food grains possessed by him within a week. A copy of the said notice has been mar ked as Annexure 1 to this writ application. Prithvi Nath Sao did not file any declaration as, according to him, he did not hold any quantity of foodgrains as fixed under the provisions of the Order. Since no declaration as required by Annexure 1 was filed, respondent no. 4 organised a raid and came to the house jointly possessed by Prithvi Nath Sao and his three sons. On a search being made 290 quintals and 50 Kilograms of paddy was found which was kept in three different rooms. Respondent no. 4 treating the family as joint excluded 50 quintals of paddy for consumption and seized 240 quintals and 50 kilograms and placed in the custody of Manmath Nath Shaw, one of the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 2011 of 1975. Thereafter a notice was issued by respondent, no. 3 to Prithvi Nath Saw to show cause as to why the foodgrains seized be not ordered to be disposed of in accordance with the provision of the Order. Prithvi Nath Saw filed show cause stating, inter alia, that the entire paddy so seized belonged to his three sons who were all separate by metes and bounds since 1961 and cultivated land of their share separately and that he had no concern with the paddy so seized. In support of the assertion that the paddy belonged to his three sons, it was also stated in the show cause that the recoveries were made from three different rooms belonging to his three sons Possession of the paddy seized was also sought to be Justified by saying that it was not in excess considering the number of each separate family of the three sons. On receipt of show cause, an inquiry by Sri R. C. P. Sinha (Executive) Magistrate, was directed to be made by respondent no. 3, the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Inquiry Magistrate submitted his report saying, inter alia, that as the name of Prithvi Sao stood in the Khatian and the name of the three sons had not been mutated, the partition alleged by Prithvi Sao could not be recognised. 3, the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Inquiry Magistrate submitted his report saying, inter alia, that as the name of Prithvi Sao stood in the Khatian and the name of the three sons had not been mutated, the partition alleged by Prithvi Sao could not be recognised. In this report, be also said that there were 20 adults and 11 minors in the family besides six servants. In his opinion, the requirement of the family including the seeds and wages was 250 quintals and l3 kilograms. According to him, therefore, 37 quintals and 37 kilograms was in excess of the requirement of the family. On receipt of the report, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that irrespective of partition, the matter was to be considered in the light of the violation of the provision of the Order. According to him, total requirement of the family including seeds and wages was 164 quintals and 75 kilogram. He, therefore, ordered to seize 125 quintals and 75 kilograms of paddy. This order as observed earlier has been marked as Annexure 3. 4. On a representation under sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of the Order, respondent no. 3 modified his order as contained in Annexure 3 to the extent that a further exemption of 20 quintals of paddy was allowed and thereby ordering for seizure of 105 quintals and 75 kilograms only. An appeal was thereafter preferred to the Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed by order dated 26. 8. 1975. A copy of this order has been marked as Annexure 4 to C. W. J. C. 1855 of 1975 and Annexre 5 to C. W. J. C. No. 2011 of 1975. 5. Counter-affidavits have been filed in both the cases on behalf of the respondents. The substance of the counter affidavits is that the• sons of Prithvi Nath Sao have not been mutated in the revenue papers and, therefore, the assertion regarding partition cannot be accepted. Alternatively, it has been said that even if the story of partition and separate cultivation was accepted, the sons were obliged to declare their stock. Since no declaration was made by them and the quantity possessed by them was in excess of the prescribed limit under the Order, the seizure was justified. Alternatively, it has been said that even if the story of partition and separate cultivation was accepted, the sons were obliged to declare their stock. Since no declaration was made by them and the quantity possessed by them was in excess of the prescribed limit under the Order, the seizure was justified. The fact that notice was given only to Prithvi Nath Sao and not to the three sons has been accepted but it has been justified on the ground that they were not cultivators within the meaning of the Order. 6. Mr. Shankar Kumar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the two petitions submitted that the S'1b•Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner erred in ignoring the registered deed by virtue of which the three sons came in possession of separate portion of lands. According to him, Prithvi Nath Sao the father had no concern with the land and that the paddy that was recovered belonged to the three sons. He further submitted that the three sons were paying not to the State of Bihar and were cultivators within the meaning of clause 2 (d) of the Order. According to him, the order contained in Annexures 3 and 4 to C. W. J. C. No. 1855 of 1975 were illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as no notice as required under the Order was served on the sons. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that Prithvi Nath Sao alone was recorded as Raiyat of the holding in the revenue records. Since the three sons were not recorded, no notice was necessary to be served on them. The point therefore, that emerges for consideration is as to whether the three sons were cultivators or not. In case it is held that they were not cultivators within the meaning of clause 2 (d) of the Order, no notice to them was necessary. But in case, it is held that they were cultivators, the impugned orders have to be quashed for non-compliance of the provision contained under clause 4 of the Order. 7. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Bihar Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock by Cultivators and Requirement to sell) Order, 1974,has been framed by the State Government. 7. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Bihar Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock by Cultivators and Requirement to sell) Order, 1974,has been framed by the State Government. The object of the Order is to maintain the supply of foodgrains and to secure their equitable distribution and availability at fair price. The provisions of the Order, therefore, has to be construed keeping in view of the object for which it has been made. Under Clause 3 of the Order, a duty has been imposed on every cultivator to make a true declaration of foodgrains held in stock by him in case the stock in any foodgrain exceeds 20 quintals in quantity or all foodgrains taking together exceed 50 quintals in quantity. Under clause 4, the Sub-divisional Officer has been authorised to serve an order in writing on the cultivator directing him to sell to the State Government or to an officer or agent of the State such quantity of foodgrains as may be determined by him be in excess of his reasonable requirement. Clause 5 (2) of the Order enables the cultivator to prefer an appeal against the order of the Sub-divisional Officer passed under sub-clause (1) of clause 5 of the Order to the Collector. A reading of the different clauses that I have referred above and other provisions of the Order makes it abundantly clear that the obligation to declare the foodgrains stock is on the cultivator and the Sub-divisional Officer can serve order in writing to sell to the State Government such quantity of foodgrains as may be determined by him to the cultivator only. It, therefore, becomes necessary to examine clause 2 (d) of the Order which defines "cultivator" and it will be useful to quote it here ;-- "Cultivator" in relation to any holding means the raiyat of the holding recorded as such in the revenue records and includes a person who actually pays rent for the holding as also a mortgagee or a receiver or institution or deities, mutwallies or wakf or trust." In case the interpretation put by learned counsel for the State that cultivator must be a person who has been recorded as raiyat in respect of holding in the revenue record is accepted, the purpose for which the order has been framed will be frustrated. The definition itself includes a person, who actually pays rent for the holding. Learned counsel for the State urged that the expression "includes a person who actually pays rent for the holding" refers to such person only who as an agent of the recorded raiyat paid rent. It is not possible to accept this interpretation. In my opinion, the expression "actually paid rent" does not mean the hand which acts as an agent of the raiyat but means the person whose perse pays rent. The following two examples will illustrate the correctness of the view that I have taken ;- (a) 'X' a cultivator whose name is recorded in the revenue records dies leaving behind two sons, who inherit the lands and come in possession of the land according to their share but do not get their names mutated in the revenue records. The produce from the lands held by the sons is such which requires them to file return under clause 3 of the Order. They are also paying rent for the land held by them. In case the interpretation put by learned counsel for the State is accepted then they are not liable to file any return nor can the Sub-divisional Officer serve a notice on them in writing to sell such quantity of foodgrains as may be determined by him to the State Government as the sons are neither the persons whose names are recorded in the revenue records nor they pay rent for the deceased father. (d) A cultivator 'X' whose name is recorded in the revenue records requests 'B' absolutely unconnected and unconcerned with his cultivation to make payment of the rent on his behalf. The amount of rent is also given by 'X' to 'B' which he has to pay as rent. In pursuance of the request 'B' goes to the office and makes payment. If the interpretation advanced by learned counsel for the State is accepted then 'B' becomes a cultivator although he has nothing to do with the cultivation and was "X's" agent only for the purpose of paying rent he becomes liable to file return under clause 3 of the Order and the Sub-divisional Officer becomes entitled to direct him to sell such quantity of the foodgrains as determined by him to the State Government. I, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the cultivator within the meaning of I clause 2 (d) of the Order means a person who either is recorded as raiyat in the revenue records or who pays rent for the holding in his own• right. 8. In the case before us, by virtue of the registered deed executed in the year 1961, the three sons were given 39.71 acres of land. They also paid for the land held by them and the State issued rent receipt to them. They were, therefore, cultivators within the meaning of clause 2 (d) of the Order. Admittedly notice in writing as requited under sub-clause (I) of clause 4 of the Order was not served upon them to sell any quantity of foodgrains possessed by them. Seizure was also effected on the assumption that they Were not cultivators. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 9. The result, therefore, is that Annexures 3 and 4 to C. W. J. C. No. 1855 of 1975 and Annexures 3 and 5 to C. W. J. C. No. 2011 of 1975 are quashed and the applications are allowed. The case is sent back to respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner, Singbhum, who after hearing the parties will decide the appeal in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.