LexINAYAT ALI KHAN versus STATE OF U. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
., 16 INAYAT ALI KHAN v. STATE OF U. P. May 6, 1971. B [S. M. Suoo, C. J., G. K. MITTER, C. A. V AIDL.u.INGAM, A. N. RAY D J! G H AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.J U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. Act I of 1961), s. 6(vii)--Exemption from ceiling-Horse-breeding farm whether exempt as a specialised Jann-Word 'and' in clause whether can be read as equivalent to 'or'. The appellant was a horse-breeder. On receipt of a notice un.der s. 10(2) of the U .P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 h~ claimed exemption under s. 6(vii) of the Act on the ground that his farm was a specialised farm within the meaning of that sub-clause. The prescrib-- ed authority under the Act, the appellate court and the High Court in revi- sion held against the appellant. In appeal by special leave, HELD : The sub-clause specially mentions two types of specialised farms, namely, those devoted to poultry-farming and dairying. As reaards others it leaves them to be prescribed by rules under s. 44 of the Act. In this context it is impossible to read the word 'and' as 'or'. Rule 4(4) prescribes those specialised farms. but farms used for horse-breeding are not included. The appeal must therefore fail. [718F] OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2018, 2019 and 2020 of 1968. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dat- ed March 2S, 1968 and March 20, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 528, 576 and 518 of 1967. S. C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the appellants (in all the appeals). S. c;. Manchanda and 0. P. Rana, for respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C. 1.-These app~ls by special leave raise a common question as to the interpretation of Section 6, Clause (xvii) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U. P. Act I of 1961)-hereinafter referred to as the Act-and can conveni- ently be disposed of together. In Writ Petition 261 of 1968 the vires of this provision is challenged. This Writ Petition was heard alongwith these civil appeals and will be disposed of by a separate judgment. In order to appreciate the point a few relevant facts in the case of Civil Appeal No 201~ of 1968 may be given. On receipt INAYAT ALI KHAN V. u. P. STATB (Sikri, CJ.) 71 '1 of a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act the appellant, Inayat A Ali Khan, filed objections. He is a horse-breeder. One objection was that he has a specialised farm and certain plots were being used for growing grass or for growing special types of crops which were used as fodder for horses. He relied on Section 6 (xvii) of the Act, which reads as follows : - "6. Exemption of certain land from imposition of B ceiling:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below, shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the sur- plus land of, a tenure-holder- C ..................• ·····<!! (xvii) land, other than land used for purely agri- cultural purposes, included in specialized farm and exclu- sively devoted to poultry farming or dairying or other such purposes, as may be prescribed: Exp/anation.-Land for the purposes. of this clause shall include land, exclusively used by the tenure-holder for growing of fodder for purposes of his dairy." A rule was framed exempting certain farms, and it reads as fol- lows:- "4(4). The following latid, included in specialised farms and exclusively devoted for purpose of sericulture, ericulture, lacculture or pisciculture shall, to the extent mentioned below, be exempt under clause (xviii> of Sec- tion 6 : (i) land under actual plantation of mulberry, cas- tor and lac-host trees-Kusum, Khair, Palse and ber-which constitute a ·grove, (ii) land on which buildings, necessary for the rearing of worms or insects producing silk andi or lac, as the case may be, and for preparation of raw silk, andi and Jae, are situate, and (iii) land, not less than one acre in area, which is covered with water throughout the year and has been used for pisciculture for a continuous period of three years, duly certified as such by an officer of the Fisheries Department, not below the rank of an Ins- pector : Provided that the land to be exempted under items (i) and (ii) above is justifiable with reference to D E F G H 718 A B c D E F G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.