Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant has challenged the decision of the High Court by which the High Court has dismissed the appellant's writ petition which had been filed in the following circumstances. The appellant was desirous of setting up a mushroom plant. For this purpose they required 35.16 acres of land. At that time a ceiling of 12.50 acres was prescribed for all landholders. This was subject to an exemption. The relevant section was 154(2) of the D.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as it then stood it read as follows: "154. (2) Subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the land tenures for the time being in force, the State Government may, by general or special order, authorise transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) if it is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered cooperative society or an institution established for a charitable purpose, which does not have land sufficient for its need or that the transfer is in the interest of general public." 3. The section was clarified by a Government Order which was issued on 30-5-1994 stating that the phrase "transfer in the interest of general public" would also include for the purposes of industrial development in the State. The Regional Commissioner was, therefore, authorised to grant permission to purchase more than 12.50 acres of land by industries under the Act. On the basis of Section 154(2) read with the Government Order, the appellant applied to the Regional Commissioner for permission to purchase 35.16 acres. The Commissioner granted the permission on 27-9-1995 in the following language: "With reference to your Letter No. 379/12-A-1l5(95-96) LP, dated 16-8-1995 on the aforesaid subject I have to inform that M/s Super Agrotech Limited, 405, Indira Nagar Colony, Dehradun, is being granted permission for purchasing 35.16 acres of land for industrial purpose, under Section 154(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, under the rights conferred under Government Order No. 180/1-1(43)/1994 dated 30-5-1994 of Revenue Section 1, Uttar Pradesh Government." 4. The appellant accordingly purchased the land and took possession. The appellant accordingly purchased the land and took possession. On 21-8-1997, the Assistant Collector passed an order stating that the appellant had purchased the land without the permission of the State Government and, therefore, the land beyond 12.50 acres of land was treated to have vested in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. A copy of the order was sent to the Collector, Dehradun for the purpose of passing an order under the Act for dispossessing the appellant from the land in question. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court. 6. The High Court construed Section 154(2) to mean that permission could be granted by the Commissioner only in favour of a cooperative society I and in favour of an institution established for charitable purposes. No permission could be granted for the purposes of establishing an industry. It was held that the Government Order dated 30-5-1994 was beyond the scope of Section 154(2) and void. The writ petition was therefore dismissed. 7. In our opinion, this appeal must be allowed. Section 154(2) clearly shows that the permission could be granted in case the State Government came to the conclusion that such transfer was in favour of (1) a registered cooperative society, or (2) an institution established for a charitable purpose, or (3) that the transfer was in the interest of the general public. The third clause did not qualify the first two clauses. The word "or" must be read as used consistently in the section disjunctively. The phrase "public interest" had been clarified by the State Government itself in its Government Order dated 30-5-1994 as including industrial development. The State Government was competent to do this and its action was wrongly held by the High Court to have been beyond Section 154(2) of the Act. 8. Before us, the respondents did not seek to support the reasoning of the High Court but sought to contend that despite the permission granted, the appellant had not developed the land within a period of two years for any industrial purposes and therefore the land was revested in the State Government. Our attention has been drawn to an amendment to Section 154 as contained in Section 154(4). It is not clear when Section 154(4) was introduced in the statute-book. Our attention has been drawn to an amendment to Section 154 as contained in Section 154(4). It is not clear when Section 154(4) was introduced in the statute-book. However, we must reject the respondents' contention on the ground that no such case was made out at any stage of the proceedings. That was also not the basis upon which the Assistant Collector had directed the vesting of the land under the Act. The Assistant Collector's order proceeded on the basis that the appellant had purchased the land without permission. The basis was incorrect. The High Court should have allowed the writ petition on this ground alone. 9. In any event, Section 154(4) as relied upon by the respondents reads as follows: "154. (4) Where any land transferred for a specified industrial purpose, or any part of such land, which is in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) remains unutilised for the specified industrial purpose, for a specified period of such extended period as may be allowed by the State Government, or is directed to any other purpose, the transfer in respect of such excess land shall for the purpose of Section 163 be deemed to have been made in contravention of the provisions of this section." 10. We have quoted the order of the Commissioner granting permission to the appellant under Section 154(2). The order does not specify any period within which the industry was to be set up. Apart from that, in our view, Section 154(4) clearly shows that the development for industrial purposes would come within one of the objects for the grant of permission by the Commissioner. 11. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21-8-1997 issued by the Assistant Collector, quashed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.