RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 24-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1996 
B 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960 : 
S.6(1) clause(f}--Exemption of ce1tain land from the imposition of 
C ceiling-Wakf Alai Au/ad-Not entitled to any differential Treatment than 
what is due to institutions at large towards exemption of ceiling of lands in 
the hands of holders. 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 
D 
S.19--Exemptiori--Charitable or religious Trnst-l.,and used for a11y 
public charitable or religious purposes-Need to establish the same-Since in 
the instant cases matter is remitted by High Court to the first appellate 
authority, that authority to detenni11e all the questions left to it. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5311 of 
E 1983 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.82 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.P. No. 2798 of 1981. 
B.D. Agrawal, Ambrish Kumar, Pramod Swamp, K.S. Chauhan, 
F Ashok K. Srivastava, S.A. Syed and Dr. N.A. Siddiqui for the appearing 
parties. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C.A. Nos. 531:1/83 & 1090/82 : 
In these two appeals, the appellant is common and so is the judgment 
under appeal, hence, disposal by a common judgment. Herein, we are 
required to give an interpretation to clause (t) of sub-section (1) of Section 
6 of the U.F. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 [the Act) 
H which reads as follows : 
738 
-
RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN v. STATE 
739 
"6. Exemption of certain land from the imposition of ceiling.-
A 
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in 
any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into-con-
sideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area ap-
plicable to, and the surplus land of a tenure- holder, namely -
(a) to (e) xxxxx 
(f) land held from before the first day of May, 1959, by or under 
a public, religious or charitable waqf, trust, endowment or institu-
B 
tion the income from which is wholly utilized for religious or 
charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of C 
which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settlers or members of 
his family or his descendants;" 
The original appellant tenure-holder, now dead and represented by 
his natural grandson, who is also the Mutwalli, was the Wakif or creator 
of a Waqf Alai Aulad created at a period prior to the 1st day of May, 1959 D 
whereby he had devised income of the properties created by Waqf to be 
spent on the welfare of his defined family members, branches of which he 
earmarked as also towards other charitable purposes such as spread of 
education. The tenure- holder claimed exemption under the above-quoted 
provision on the ground that the case squarely fell within the earlier part E 
of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 since it encompassed a 
charitable purpose of public nature when providing for need of education 
etc. The ceiling authorities below answered this question in a workable way 
of a sort in dividing the W akf s income in a ratio expendible on charitable 
and family purposes, and gave relief covering charitable purposes. This 
approach of the authorities was demolished by the High Court in the two F 
writ petitions preferred by the affected parties; the ultimate decision being 
that the Wakf fell within the purview of the latter part of the aforequoted 
provision and since it involved land income of which was partially meant 
for the settler and the members of his fanrily, the tenure-holder could in 
no event claim exemption under the aforequoted provision. The aim here G 
is to apply the said provision, if possible, to the Waqf Alai Aulad which is 
party meant for the benefit of settler and his family and partly for other 
religious and/or charitable purposes. 
It is plain from the reading of the provision that it is not meant to 
apply solely to Waqfs. It is not meant exclusively for the benefit of the H 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A Muslim community. Patently, it is a provision which applies to all and is 
meant to cover public, religious or charitable trusts, endowments or institu-
--
tions inclusive of Waqf and no room has been made towards importing the 
specific attributes of a particular kind of institution with a particular 
character. What is clearly meant is that if the holder has in his possession 
B an institution which holds land and that institution happen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.