Judgment B. S. Sinha, J. 1. In this application, under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure 11, an order dated 17.6.1974, passed by the Collector of Saran, in Miscellaneous p. Case no.90 of 1973, by which he has directed the Circle Officer of Amnapur to issue a Parcha to respondent no.1, Rajpati Devi under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also to grant her all protections to which she is entitled under the Act. 2. Plot no.1446 appertaining to Khata no.17 situated in village Dhorlahi kaithal within Amnaour police station having an area of 1 Katha 18 dhurs is the land in dispute. One Sheo Narain Ram son of respondent no.1 laid claim to this plot as a privileged tenant and in the year 1972 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Amnaour for a grant of a Parcha under the Act. The petitioner filed an objection to the aforesaid petition of the Sheo Narain Ram, on which the matter was referred to the Circle Inspector for inquiry, who after setting the matter inquired into by the Karmachanes concerned submitted a report dated 21 7 1972, copy of which is Annexure 2. Along with his report, the Circle Inspector submitted a true copy of the report of the Karamchari of halka no 8 copy of which is Annexure 3. The Halka Karamchari had reported that the father of Sheo Narain Ram, Loma Ram had in the neighbouring village, khoripakar Khrag 30 decimals of land out of which plot no.322 having an area of 1 decimal is recorded as his Basgit land. The other lands that he possessed were plot no.743, having 5 decimals and plot no.109, having 24 decimals After a consideration of all these reports, the Circle Officer reported the matter to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who was the competent authority under the Act to pass final orders. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector on a consideration of the materials before him came to the conclusion that Sheo ram Narain was not a privileged person within the meaning of section 2 (i)of the Act and was, therefore, not entitled to any Parcha as a privileged tenant, copy of this order has been annexed and marked as Annexure 5 which is dated 8.8.1972. 3. 3. Thereafter respondent no.1, who. it is not disputed, is the mother of Sheo Narain Ram, filed an application before the Collector of Saran, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Petition Case no.90 of 1973, copy of which is Annexure 8, in which she had stated that she was residing in village Dharlahi kaithal within Amnaour police station for more than 30 years and had her house no 1446 appertaining to Khata no.17. She also stated in it that on the vacant portion of this land she has her Sehan. She further stated that the petitioner was a Kashtkar. i. e. tenant of the plot in question and being a rich and influential person in the village was attempting to forcibly evict her. Apprehending danger of forceful eviction, she had moved the Circle Officer, amnaour to grant her a Parcha under the Act, on which no action had been taken and hence she was approaching the Collector directly to seek protection. She further stated that she had no other land except the disputed land. She accordingly prayed that a Parcha might be issued in her favour under the Act and fair rent fixed. She also prayed that the Circle Officer, Amnaour and the officer Incharge Amnaour, Police Station, be directed to protect her from wroneful and forceful dispossession. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the petition filed by resdondent no.1 and also filed an affidavit controverting the statements of respondent no.1. In the rejoinder, the petitioner denied that resoondent no.1 was either a privileged person or a privileged tenant. It was also stated that she had no house on the disputed plot and she had never been in possession of it. Various other facts were also stated in this petition. 4. On a consideration of the materials on the record, the learned Collector passed the impugned order. 5. It is not disputed here that respondent no.1 has inherited certain lands in village Khoripakar Kharag which has an area of 30 decimals, out of which plot no.322 having an area of 1 decimal is recorded as Basgit land. In his order the learned Collector stated that the main issue in the case was whether respondent no.1 could be treated as a privileged tenant in view of the fact that a plot in village Khoripakhar Kharag was shown as her Basgit land. In his order the learned Collector stated that the main issue in the case was whether respondent no.1 could be treated as a privileged tenant in view of the fact that a plot in village Khoripakhar Kharag was shown as her Basgit land. Having come to the conclusion that she had no residential house of Palani standing on plot no.322 in village Khoripakar Kharag he concluded that the same could not be treated as homestead in her possession. He accordingly come to the conclusion that the only homestead held by her was plot no.1446 and hence she was a privileged tenant and was entitled to a Parcha for this homestead. 6. In support of the application Sri Sankat Haran Singh submitted that respondent no.1 could not be granted Parcha in respect of the disputed land inasmuch as 1 decimal of land in plot no.322 in village Khoripakar Kharag is recorded as Basgit in the name of her husband Loma Ram and she is undoubtedly in possession of land. The fact that there is no house standing on the plot, even if correct, will not make any difference. Learned counsel submitted that only such a person can be a privileged tenant who has no other homestead except the one in respect of which he is laying his claim. 7. privileged tenant has been defined in the Act and means a privileged person who holds homestead under another person and is or, but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for such homestead to such person. Therefore, under the Act the first condition for a person to be a privileged tenant is that he must be a privileged person. privileged person has defined in section 2 (i) and reads as follows : "privileged person" means a person- (1) who is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenure-holder or a mahajan; and (2) who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre ;" it therefore, follows that a privileged person should not be a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenure-holder or a Mahajan. It is admitted that the petitioner is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenure-holder or a Mahajan. It is admitted that the petitioner is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenure-holder or a Mahajan. However, in order to be a privileged person the second condition which has got to be fulfilled in terms of the definition is that such parson, besides his or her homestead, "holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre". The submission is that a privileged person should have no other land except the homestead which cannot exceed one acre. It is said "such land" occurring in section 2 (i) (2) of the Act refers to homestead. In other words, section 2 (i) (2)of the Act means that a privileged person can have a homestead which does not exceed one acre and has no other land. 8. The object of the Act is to give protection to the economically weakest section in the rural areas and to mitigate some of their hardships. Quite often persons in the rural area live in house on lands belonging to the land holder or to the raiyat or in houses either built by themselves or built by the land holder or the raiyat. In such situations, su h persons are, at best, "tenants at will" with regard to the homestead and liable to be turned put any moment by the landlord or by the raiyat, as the case may be, irrespective of the length of the period of occupation. It is, to mitigate such hardships that the Act has been passed. However, it is a well-settled rule of interpretation that the best method to find out the intention of the legislature is by referring to the words used by the legislature. It is also a good general rule in jurisprudence that one who reads a legal document whether public or private, should not, be proved to ascribe should not, without understood on some sound reasons, impute to its language tautology or superfluity and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use. 9. Bearing the above principles in mind it would be useful to recapitulate that under clause (2) of section 2 (i) of the Act, a privileged person is a person who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. 9. Bearing the above principles in mind it would be useful to recapitulate that under clause (2) of section 2 (i) of the Act, a privileged person is a person who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. Therefore, to be a privieged person the first requirement under this cause is that the person has a homestead. homestead, according to shorter Oxford Dictionary, Volume I, 1959 edition, means the place of ones home or a house with its dependent buildings and officer. Under the act, however, homestead does not only mean the land which is used for residential purposes but also includes any Sahan and Bari thereto. In the case of Rago V/s. State, (35 ILR 1040), Rajkishore Prasad, J. with whom Ramaswami, c. J. agreed, observed that from the definition of the word homestead as given in the Act, "it is evident that the word homestead has been given an extended meaning in section 2 (d) of the Act. It is so wide as to include not only any building erected on the land, but also any vacant land used for residential purposes with the consent of the landlord. " With respect I am in complete agreement with this observation. 10. Clause (2) of section 2 (i) further provides that besides his homestead the person concerned holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. Given the ordinary grammatical meaning of the words used in it, it is obvious to me that this clause provides that apart from his homestead the person concerned should hold no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. besides means, apart from or excluding. Hence, excluding the homestead, the person concerned, the clause states, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. It is manifest that such land used in the last part of this clause refers to the word land used immediately before the word or. Hence the clause as a whole means that a privileged person is a person who has his homestead and excluding it either holds no land or holds land not exceeding one acre. To hold, that the words such land in the last portion of the clause refer to homestead, would be grammatically wrong. 11. Hence the clause as a whole means that a privileged person is a person who has his homestead and excluding it either holds no land or holds land not exceeding one acre. To hold, that the words such land in the last portion of the clause refer to homestead, would be grammatically wrong. 11. The vital question which still remain to be determined is as to whether respondent no.1 having already a basgit piece of land in her possession, besides other land in an adjoining village, could claim right under the Bihar privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act in respect of another piece of land on which she claim to be residing. The observation of Lord Atkinson in keats and B. Lewis Nerthy V/s. Consolidated Collieries, (1911)3 AC 8), that "in the construction of a statute it is, of course, at all times and under all circumstances permissible to have regard to the state of things existing at the time the statute was passed and to the evils, which appears from its provisions, it was designed to remedy "was quoted with approval by Chandrashekher aiyar, J. , in D. N. Banerji Administrator, Budge Budge Municipality V/s. P. R. Mukherji and others, ( AIR 1953 SC 58 ), who further laid down, that if words are capable of only one meaning alone then it has to be adopted but-it succeptible to wider import, regard has to be paid what the particular piece of legislation had in view. The expression "homestead" has been defined under section 2 (d) of the Act and reads as follows : "homestead means any land which is held on lease or used with the consent, express or implied, of the landlord for residential purposes and includes any building erected thereon together with any Sahan and Bari appurtenant thereto. " Analysing the definition, it is apparent that a "homestead" can be classified in the following two categories, namely : (1) "any land which is held on lease for residential purposes" and (2) any land used with the consent, express or implied, of the landlord for residential purposes" and in either case "includes any building erected thereon, together with any Sahan and Bari appurtenant thereto". The essence of the matter is that the land should be held for residential purpose, whether there is a building or not being immaterial. The essence of the matter is that the land should be held for residential purpose, whether there is a building or not being immaterial. Therefore, a land to be called homestead under the definition, it is not necessary that any building should be erected thereon,. ludged in the light of the definition of the expression homestead in section 2 (d) of the Act, 1 decimal ofbasgit land held by respondent no.1 in village Khoripakar Kharag under plot no.322 will surely come within the definition of homestead under the Act. The object behind the Act was to see permanent tenancy for a privileged tenant in the homestead which he was either holding on lease or using with the express or implied consent of the landlord for residential purposes. It was not the intention behind the Act that a person having already raiyati right in one homestead would be allowed to have permanent right in another homestead tenancy. The idea was to secure permanent tenancy in the homestead where such a person has no raiyati right in any homestead. Under the mandatory provisions of the Act a privileged person having no other homestead will have permanent tenancy in the homestead held by him at any time continuously fora period of one year (section 4 ). Under section 8 the Collector h as been given power after enquiry to determine fair and equitable rent. Sec.8 limits the ground on which a privileged tenant can be ejected from the tenancy. Sec.9 places restrictions on the right of a privileged tenant to alienate the homestead except as provided in sections 10 to 17. The order passed by the collector under the Act declaring the right of a privileged tenant in the homestead held by him has been made final and is not subject to any appeal or revision under section 18. 12 Such being the restrictive provisions of the Act, it could not have been the intention of the Legislature that a raiyat have already a basgit piece of land or homestead could be allowed to acquire another homestead even if he is not residing on t hat homestead and has allowed the structures on that homestead held by him to disappear or to fall down. The idea behind the act is to secure for him a piece of land for his residential purposes. The idea behind the act is to secure for him a piece of land for his residential purposes. If he has already a piece of land or homestead then there is no meaning in further securing for him permanent tenancy in some land on which he might actually be living. In the present case respondent no.1 cannot take any advantage of the provisions of the Act as she has already a homestead and is not without a homestead land. 13. In view of my findings above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Collector dated 17.6.1974 as contained in Annexure 11 is quashed. In the circumstances, of the case I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.