GOPINDER SINGH versus FOREST DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 17-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GOPINDER SINGH 
v. 
FOREST DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. 
,.,._ 
AUGUST 17, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, n:J 
Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968: Rule 7(a)-Grant 
of nautor land to a resident having income of more than Rs.2,000 per 
'<annum-Validity of 
-- _,, 
Clause (a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 
1968 makes every resident of the estate having less than ten bighas of 
land or having an income of less than Rs.2,000 per annum from all 
sources including lands, eligible for grant ofland in nautor. 
-~ _ 
The grant of nautor land to the appellant-teacher was set aside by 
the Financial Commissioner in revision. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petition in limine. 
In the appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant 
that the word 'or' occurring in-between the first and the second part of 
cl. (a) of Rule 7 has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be 
read as 'and' that the two parts of the cluase were, therefore, indepen-
., dent of each other and had to be read disjunctively, and that he being 
eligible under the first part, even though having an income of more than 
Rs.2,000 per annum as a teacher, the second part of cl. (a) was not 
attracted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: I. A person who has got less than IO bighas ofland but has 
~an income of m9re than Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including 
the said land is not eligible for allotment of nautor land under cl. (a) of 
Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. [800G] 
2. The object of granting nautor land under the Rules is to help 
poor and unprovided for residents of the State. Considering the nature, 
scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is necessary 
to read the word 'or' in-between the first and the second part of clause 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.lia) as 'and'. The two parts cannot, therefore, be read disjunctively. The 
second part makes it clear that an income of less than Rs.2,000 per 
H 
annum should be from all sources including lands. [800H; 80IA] 
797 
A 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] .3 S.C.R. 
3. The appellant's income in the instant case. being more than 
Rs.2,000 per annum he was not entitled to the grant of nautor land. [SOJA]~ 
CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006 
of 1981. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1981 of the Himachal 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 94of 1981. 
M.V. Goswami for the Appellant. 
Nemo for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. "Nautor land"' under Rule 3 of the Himachal 
Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called 'Rules') means 
the right to utilize with the sanction of the competent authority, waste 
land owned by the Government outside the towns, outside the 
reserved and demarcated protected forests, and outside such other 
areas as may be notified from tinie to time by the State Government. 
Gopinder Singh applied for the grant of nautor land measuring 
14 bighas 12 biswas situated in vmage Kanai for cultivation. The 
Revenue Assistant Chopal vide his order dated June 29, 1972 sane- ', 
tioned nautor land measuring 1 l bighas 1 biswas situated in village 
Kanai to him on payment of Rs.552.50 as Nazarana. The Forest 
Department filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy 
Commissioner Simla which was accepted and the order of the Revenue 
Assistant Chopal sanctioning nautor land in favour of Gopinder Singh 
• 
was set aside. 
· Gopinder Singh filed further appeal to Divisional Commissioner, 
Himachal Pradesh at Simla who accepted the same and vide his order 
dated September 9, 1974 restored the grant of nautor land to Gopinder 
Singh. The Forest Department filed revision petition be~ore the Finan-
J 
G 
cial Commissiner (Revenue Appeals) Himachal Pradesh who accepted 
the revision petition and set aside the order dated September 9, 1974 
of the Divisional Commissioner sanctioning nautor land to Gopinder 
Singh. He- furthe_r ordered that -the amount of Nazarana should_ be 1 
refunded to Gopinder Singh and the land resumed to the State. The 
Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal on the following two 
_H 
grounds: 
GOPINDER v. FOREST DEPTT. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
799 
(1) Gopinder Singh felled the trees on the land without waiting 
for necessary approval of the Divisional Forest Officer and 
as such he took the law in his own hands. 
(2) Being a teacher in a Government school drawing monthly
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.