Judgment Nagendra Rai and Navin Sinha JJ. 1. The appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been filed against the judgment dated 2.3.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 995 of 1984 dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant challenging resolution of the Board dated 22.11.1983, whereby the Board has upheld the order passed by the authorities concerned under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) rejecting the objection. 2. The admitted fact is that Land Ceiling Case No. 250 of 1973 was initiated under the provisions of the Act against the petitioner and adverse orders were passed by the authorities under the Act, which was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by filing writ petition, vide CWJC No. 1675 of 1976, which was allowed by this Court on the ground that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner and before annulment of the sale deeds u/s. 5 of the Act the transferees were not noticed. This Court directed the authorities to consider the matter afresh in the light of observations made in the order. Thereafter, the objection raised by the petitioner u/s. 10(2) of the Act was considered and rejected by the Additional Collector on 9.10.1982, which was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 22.3.1983. Before the appellate authority the appellant confined its objection only as to whether the tank is a land within the meaning of the Act as defined u/s. 2(f) of the Act or not. The appellate court held that the tank is land within the meaning as defined under the Act and the said finding has been upheld by the Board by its resolution dated 22.11.1983. The appellant challenged the orders passed by the revenue authorities before this Court which as stated above has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, hence the present appeal. 3. The only question for consideration is whether tank is included in the definition of the land or not and if included then whether it should be even tank or all tank should be included within the definition. 4. Learned. 3. The only question for consideration is whether tank is included in the definition of the land or not and if included then whether it should be even tank or all tank should be included within the definition. 4. Learned. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even if tank is included in the definition of the land the tank should be even one as defined under the Act and there being no finding that the tank belonging to the petitioner is even one the authorities were not justified in treating the tank as land under the provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel for the State supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge did not accept the stand of the appellant on the ground that the according to definition of land, the land submerged perennially into water except bed of the river is a land and the same includes a tank also and the word even used prior to land perennially submerged into water is not used as adjective to the word land but it has been used to mean also only. 5. The Act has been enacted for fixation of ceiling area and settlement of surplus land to the landless, for acquiring status of raiyat by certain under-raiyats and for other connected matters. The land as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act prior to its amendment by Act 55 of 1982, is as follows : "land means land which is used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture and includes land which is an orchard, kharhur or pasturage or the homestead of a land-holder." 6. In the said definition the land perennially submerged under water was not included in the definition of land. By Amendment Act 55 of 1982 additions were made in the said definition of land and after the words "kharhur or pasturage" the words "or kharhur or pasturage or forest land or even land perennially submerged water" were inserted and were deemed always to have been inserted and Explanation No. II was also added which provided that the land perennially submerged under water shall not include submerged in the bed of a river. Thus, after amendment the definition of the land runs as follows : "land means land which is used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture and includes land which is an orchard, kharhur or pasturage or forest land or also the land perennially submerged under water or the homestead of land-holder." 7. It appears that the above definition was again amended by Ordinance No. 3 of 1999 and in place of words "even land" used in sec. 2(f) of the Act the words "also the land" was substituted. The said Ordinance has been followed by Act 5 of 2002. Thus, originally the land perennially submerged under water was not included in the definition of land. Later this was inserted and before the word "land", the word "even" has been used and the controversy thus centers round with regard to this one. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the land perennially submerged under water will fall within the definition of land; only when it is even one. If it is not even one in that case will not be included within the definition of land. 8. Use of a particular word in the statutory provision is not to be interpreted in isolation, its meaning has to be considered in the context in which it is used keeping in view the aims and object of the statutory provisions. The Apex Court in the case of Jagir Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 997 held in para 20 as follows : "The general rule of construction is not only to look at the words but to look at the context, the collocation and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning according to what would appear to be the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances." 9. The definition clause contained the words means and includes both. When only word "means" is used generally the natural meaning of the word is given effect to or in other words use of word mean suggest that the legislature had intended to use the word in restrictive sense. When the word includes is used then that means that an extensive meaning has to be given to the word. But when both words are used then definition is exhaustive one. When the word includes is used then that means that an extensive meaning has to be given to the word. But when both words are used then definition is exhaustive one. In this connection reference has been made to the case of P. Kasilingam and Ors. V/s. P.S.G. College of Technology and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1395 where it has been held that the words "means and includes" indicate an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purpose of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expression". In the definition clause means and includes both has been used so the definition is exhaustive one and they indicate to include all land which has been perennially submerged into water except those which are covered by Explanation II, where land perennially submerged into bed of the river has been excluded from the definition of the land. Once the legislature intended to include the lands perennially submerged into water except the land covered by Explanation II there is no reason to confine its definition to even land only. All land which includes tank also perennially submerged under water would fell within the definition of land. 10. We fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the word even carries the meaning of also only and includes the land which has perennially submerged into water. The legislature has subsequently amended the provisions by Ordinance 3 of 1999 and clarified that the word even was used in place of also and this provision has to be held a part of the statute from the appointed date, i.e., from 9.9.1970, So the legislature has cleared its intention by the subsequent amendment. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.