Kali Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation — 1986 DIGILAW 100 (ALL)

JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in proceedings u/s 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). 2. In the basic year plot No. 161/2 area 2 bight 2 biswa was recorded as bhumidhari in the name of the Petitioners An objection u/s 9A(2) of the Actfe was filed by Harish Chandra, Pradhan, Gram Sabha, jasra and one Ram Kishore and a number of other persons of the village stating that the land in dispute was a tank, which was used in connection with agriculture. The cattle of the village used to drink water in it. It was used for taking out mud for constructing cattle shed and for similar other connected purposes it has vested in the Gaon Sabha and was not cultivable on the spot nor was it the bhumidhari of the Petitioners. It was prayed that the entry of bhumidhar in favour of the Petitioners may be expunged and the land in dispute may be entered as a tank of the Gaon Sabha, Jasra. 3. The Petitioners contested the claim of the Gaon Sabha, Jasra and other villagers and alleged that they have purchased plot No. 161/2 by a sale deed dated 20.07.l950 along with a number of other plots for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from one Kanhaiya Lai Bhargava etc. and became bhumidhar and the basic year entry was correct. 4. The Consolidation Officer held that from an area of 12 bows 3 dhur the name of Kali Prasad and other Petitioners may be expungned and the same may be entered as tank of the Gaon Sabha. Against this order an appeal was preferred by the Petitioner, which was ultimately partly allowed by the order dated 17.08.74 and the area of 12 bows 3 dour was reduced to 9 bitwise and the same was ordered to be entered as tank. It was further ordered that other area would be entered as Abadi in Zimin 6. The Petitioners were, however, directed to be entered as Bhumidhar in respect of the area of Party land. The Petitioners preferred revision which was dismissed by order dated 19.07.74. It is against these orders the present petition has been filed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioners were, however, directed to be entered as Bhumidhar in respect of the area of Party land. The Petitioners preferred revision which was dismissed by order dated 19.07.74. It is against these orders the present petition has been filed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Sri V.K.S. Chowdhry appearing for the Petitioners urged that the objections u/s 9A(2) of the Act preferred on behalf of Respondent No. 4, Gaon Sabha, Jasra and Respondent No. 5 Ram Kishore was not maintainable as it was in their individual capacity and that the abadi or tank etc. was not covered by the definition of 'land' as given u/s 3(5) of the Act, hence the orders passed by the consolidation authorities were without jurisdiction, and that it was a tenant's tank, hence it shall not vest in the Gaon Sabha or the State and the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect of the tank. The learned Counsel relied on Triloki Nath v. Ram Gopal 1974 RD 5 , Kamla Shankar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1979 RD 78, Gaon Sabha v. Bal Kishan, Unreported Revenue Cases (19/4) Vol. I page 255, Smt. Manseeti Kunwar v. Ram Nath Singh 1982 ALR 655 and Raja Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1983 KD 15 (Hindi Section). 6. Sri K.B. Garg appeared for the Gaon Sabha and Sri R.N. Upadhyaya appeared for Respondent No. 5. Sri Garg urged that the objection was filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and other villagers and it was actually an objection of the Gaon Sabha and was correctly filed u/s 9A(2) of the Act and was maintainable He further urged that the land in dispute was a tank covered by water in an area of 12 bight 3 bows and it was never cultivated nor the same was in possession of the Petitioner, rather it was being used by the persons of the locality and the villagers for taking out the mud to repair their houses, which was a usual phenomenan in the country side. The cattle of the village also used to drink water in the tank and it was used for various other purposes connected with agriculture and the Petitioners were not in possession of the same. It was recorded as a tank even in 1282 Fasli. The cattle of the village also used to drink water in the tank and it was used for various other purposes connected with agriculture and the Petitioners were not in possession of the same. It was recorded as a tank even in 1282 Fasli. i.e 1874 AD and it may be tank of the tenants, but it was never in their possession, rather it became land of public utility. He further urged that the Petitioners being out of possession for more than the prescribed period, their rights came to an end. He further urged that, in any case, substantial justice has been done by the impugned orders and this Court need not interfere with the impugned orders. 7. Sri R.N. Upadhyaya also urged similar points as urged by Sri Garg and ultimately he also urged that the findings that the land in dispute was not used for cultivation and no crops were sown and the land has never been in possession of the Petitioners, hence the Petitioners lost their rights being out of possession for more than the prescribed period and substantial justice was done by the impugned orders. 8. A3 regards the first submission made on behalf of the Petitioners that the objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was not maintainable, suffice it to say that a certified copy of the objection has been filed as Annexure 1 to the petition and it does bear the signature of Harish Chandra, Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, Jasra and one Ram Rishore, Respondent No. 5 and a number of other villagers. The said objection was filed u/s 9A(2) of the Act with the allegations that the land was a tank and the cattle used to drink water and the villagers used to take out mud from the said tank to repair their houses, hence the land in dispute may be entered as a tank of the Gaon Sabha and the entries in the basic year may be expunged. Further if Sections 9, 9A and 11C of the Act are read together it is clear that Sections 9, 9(2) and 9A(2) of the Act provide for objection being filed by a tenure holder and the Gaon Sabha in certain cases can also file objection but even if it does not file objection, in view of Section 11C, if any court comes to the conclusion that any particular land is of such a nature which cannot be holding oil a bhumidhar or sirdar, it can be ordered to vest in the Gaon sabha, even though it may not have filed any objection. In this view of the matter the objection purporting to be on bestial of the Gaon Sabha (Annexure-1) to the petition, is an objection. I am satisfied that it was an objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and other persons of the village and it was clearly maintainable. 9. As regards the second limb of the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners that the tank was not covered by the definition of land ' as given u/s 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, to appreciate it the statutory provisions of Section 3(5) can fruitfully be set out below: 3(5). Land mea as land held or occupied for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes: (i) the site, being part of holding, of a house or other similar structure, and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holding. 10. There is a Latin maxim " Animus Impotents " which obviously means that the duty of a Court while interpreting a particular statute is to ascertain the intention of the Jaw givers. Further in Heydon's case (3 Co. Rep. 7) it was held that duty of a Judge is to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. 11. Further in Heydon's case (3 Co. Rep. 7) it was held that duty of a Judge is to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. 11. In Narain Khanam v. P.K. Jain 1985 SC 4 12 it has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in order to interpret a statute, the object and reasons cannot be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the provisions of the statute, but it is permissible to refer to the statement of object and reasons accompanying the bill for the purpose of understanding the back-ground, the antecedent, state of affairs, surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil which the statute sought to be remedied. In the instant case I think it is better to refer to the objects and reasons of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 12. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is an Act to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in U.P. for the development of agriculture. From this the intention to enact the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can be ascertained. It was with a view to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings and for the development of agriculture in the State. 13. In the instant case the definition of land bears certain provisions for the development and improvement of agriculture. There is no denying the fact that India is an agricultural country and even father of the nation, jviahatma Gandhi, used to say that India lives in villages, hence the convenience of the village people has to be looked into with particular attention and for that purpose the legislature has enacted certain provisions for development and improvement of agriculture. 14. In R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684 on 7C9 Para 50 it was held that it was permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the meaning in which a word is capable of being used. Let us refer to dictionary meaning of the word 'connected with' as used in Section 3(5): (1) According to Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary: 'connect' denotes to be, fasten together to establish a relation between, to associate. (2) According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary: 'connect', means to join, to link together usually by means of something intervening. Let us refer to dictionary meaning of the word 'connected with' as used in Section 3(5): (1) According to Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary: 'connect' denotes to be, fasten together to establish a relation between, to associate. (2) According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary: 'connect', means to join, to link together usually by means of something intervening. (3) According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: 'connect' means to associate in occurrence, action or ides, to become united or joined. (4) According to 'Words and Phrases' (permanent Edn., Vol, 8A) Word 'connected' as used in Civil Practice may have a broad signification. The connections may be slight, or intimate, remote or near, and where the line shall be drawn it may be difficult sometimes to determine. 15. In view of these meanings of word 'connect' or 'connected with', it is evident that the definition of 'land' u/s 3(5) does not, lay down land 'actually used', for cultivation but legislature appears to be wise enough to make it more comprehensive by using the clause 'land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture etc' This signifies that the use of the lard may be slightly connected with the purpose of agriculture or may be remotely connected with the purpose of agriculture or even may be intimately or closely connected with the purpose of agriculture. 16. No body can deny that rearing of cattle is an integral part of agriculture, may be that the cattle may be milk yielding or other was It the instant case the definition of land appears to be clear and it means the land held or occupied for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. The rearing of cattle is a part of agriculture. If the cattle of the village used to drink water in any tank, the purpose of tank becomes connected with agriculture and animal husbandry. 17. I am of the view that the definition of land as given under the UP Z and LR Act has been deliberately made more comprehensive than the definition of land given u/s 3(10) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The said definition is set out below : (3 dO) 'Land' means land which is let or held for growing of crops, or as a grove land or for pasturage. The said definition is set out below : (3 dO) 'Land' means land which is let or held for growing of crops, or as a grove land or for pasturage. It includes land covered by water used for the purpose of growing singhara or other produce but does not include land for the time being occupied by buildings or appurtenant thereto other than the buildings which ate improvements. 18. It appears that the above definition of land was not so comprehensive as the definition of land given u/s 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In that definition if the land was covered by water used for the purposes of growings Singhara, only in that event it can be included in the definition of 'land'. That clause appears to have been intentionally omitted, under the Act. In other words if the land is held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, it is 'land' even though it may not be used for the purpose of growing Singhara. In the instant case as the 'land', in dispute was tank covered by water and the cattle of the village used to drink water in it, I am accordingly of the view that it was included in the definition of 'land'. 19. It is possible that in the way I am interpreting the definition of 'land' may appear to be less well fitted to the words used, but certainly it is better fitted to the intention of the Act and the legislature. To substantiate this, I would be failing in my duty, if I do not refer to the following observations in Gladstone v. Bower (1960) 3 All ER 353: The court will always allow the intention of the statute to override the defects of wording, but the court's policy to do so is limited by recognized canon of interpretations The Court may, for example prefer an alternative construction which is less fitted to the words used but is better fitted to the intention of the Act. 20. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, it is clear that the j definition of 'land' u/s 3(5) of the Act includes the lank under the j facts and circumstances of the case. 20. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, it is clear that the j definition of 'land' u/s 3(5) of the Act includes the lank under the j facts and circumstances of the case. Further as a major portion, at least 12 bitwise 3 hours was covered by water in the tank, it has been held by the consolidation authorities that the area covered by water was not used for growing crops or for cultivator purpose rather the cattle used to drink water in it and the village people used to take out mud to repair their houses. Further it has been held that the Petitioners are not in possession over the area covered by water. It is important to mention that since 1282 Fasli (i.e. 1874 AD.) the land was entered as tank since much prior to the date of vesting the Petitioners were out of possession, hence they lost all rights and their claim became time barred. Such land, I am of the view, can only vest in the Gaon Sabha. In respect of such tank the consolidation authorities have certainly jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties. 21. The other submission that as the land was tenant's tank hence it would not vest in the Gaon Sabha, is equally devoid of merits. S the findings of fact arrived at by the consolidation authorities are that the Petitioners were not in possession in respect of the area covered by water and that it was not used for growing crops, it was not used for agriculture purpose, hence such land car. not be bhumidhari or sirdari of the Petitioners and it shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. As the Gaon Sabha ha been created under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to supervise and advance the interest of the villagers, it has got comprehensive authority to look after the entire land that vest in the State and the Gaon Sabha as provided u/s 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act. As the Gaon Sabha ha been created under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to supervise and advance the interest of the villagers, it has got comprehensive authority to look after the entire land that vest in the State and the Gaon Sabha as provided u/s 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act. Hence if there is any land covered by water and it is in the form of a tank and the cattle of the village used to drink water in it and the residents of the village used to take out mud from it to repair their houses and the same was further used for other similar Connected purposes, it would certainly be supervised by the Gaon Sabha and only the Gaon Sabha can have right and authority over the same. The consolidation authorities have correctly held that they have jurisdiction to entertain such objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act pertaining to the tank and they have correctly decided the controversy between the parties and it has correctly been held by the consolidation authorities that the tank in dispute does not belong to the Petitioners rather it has vested in the Gaon Sabha and was a land of public utility covered by water. 22. As regards the next submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in respect of abadi the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, I am of the opinion that this part of the contention appears to be well founded. 23. In Triloki Nath v. Ram Gopal (supra), it has been held that the consolidation authorities cannot correct the record of rights in respect of land not used for the purposes connected with agriculture and accordingly in respect of abadi the consolidation courts have no jurisdiction. 24. In Kamla Shankar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) it was held that if the land was found to be abadi the entry can be made in column 25 of the C.H. Form Z.A and the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to direct the expunction of names of the Petitioners and direct the entry of bhumidhar to be made and the basic year entry in the name of the Petitioners as bhumidhars was in that case maintained. 25. 25. Similarly in Raja Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), it was held that unless the land u/s 3(5) of the Act was covered by the definition, of land in that event the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to cancel the lease in respect of such land. 26. In Smt. Manseeti Kunwar v. Ram Nath Singh (supra), it was held that if the land was abadi the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to order removal of the Plaintiff's name from the revenue record and enter the name of the Defendants. I am in respectful agreement with the observation in the cases aforesaid and I am of the view that in respect of area which was not tank on the spot, as was clear from the inspection made by the Consolidation Officer on 30th September, 1971 and also the spot inspection made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 27.01.73 as referred to on page 26 of the paper book (order of the Consolidation Officer), page 29 of the paper book (order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)) and similarly in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.07.74 (Annexure 5 to the petition), which was abide on the spot, the order of the consolidation authorities are manifestly erroneous to that extent. 27. Latin maxim "Salus Populi Est Suprema" is relevant here, which means that regard for public welfare is the highest law. Individual welfare shall, in case of necessity, yield to that of the community and that has priority, liberty and life shall, under certain circumstance be placed in jeopardy. Further about an area of 0.12.03 was covered by water and the cattle of the village used to drink water in it and this area later on appears to have been induced to 0.9.0 as stated by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his order dated 17.08.74 (Annexure 4 to the petition), hence in respect of such land which was used for public purpose and public welfare, I am accordingly of the view, that substantial justice has been done by the impugned orders to that extent. This area has correctly been directed by the consolidation authorities to vest in the Gaon Sabha and the State and it has correctly been held not to be bhumidhari land of the Petitioners. 28. This area has correctly been directed by the consolidation authorities to vest in the Gaon Sabha and the State and it has correctly been held not to be bhumidhari land of the Petitioners. 28. In view of the discussions made herein above, the petition partly succeeds to the extent that in respect of the area covered by abadi the orders of the consolidation authorities are quashed. As regards the area covered by water which was a tank on the spot, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the partial success and failure, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.