SHEIKH GULFAN AND OTHERS versus SANAT KUMAR GANGULI

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 15-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

364 
SHEIKH GULFAN AND OTHERS 
v. 
SANAT KUMAR GANGULI 
March 15, 1965 
A 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAiH AND V. RAMA-
B 
SWAMI, JJ.J 
Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act (2 of 1949), s. 30(c)-If applies to land 
in respecr of which betterment fee is levied. 
The appellants were thika tenants under the respondent in respect 
of the suit land. Under the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act, 1911, a 
Rcheme had been framed for improvement of an area within which 
the suit land was situate and the suit land was shown among the 
pro!Jerties in regard to which betterment fees were proposed to be 
levied. The respondent accepted the betterment fee assessed and 
levied under s. 78A of the Act. Thereafter, he filed suits for the eject-
ment of the appellants. The suits were d'smissed as not maintainable, 
because of s. 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, under which 
an application for the ejectment of a thika tenant could be filed only 
before the Controller under that Act, On appeal, it was held, that the 
suits were governed by the provisions of s. 30(c) of the Thika Tenancy 
Act, under·which, nothing in the Act applied to any land which was 
required for carrying out any of the provis'ons of the Improvement 
Trust Act, and therefore,· the appeals were allowed. 
c 
D 
In the a n0eal to this Court by the tenants on the question "" to 
E 
whether s. 30(c) applied to the suits; 
HELD: Bt'cause the land was liable to pay betterment fee and 
tbe fee thus realised served the purPQSe of s. 122 of the Improvement 
•rrust Act by swelling the funds of the Imorovement Trust Board and 
"uch fm,d could be utilised by the Board for the purposes of carryjng 
out the scheme, it cannot be said that the land itself was reauired for 
F 
carryini; out the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act. The require-
J'lent of s. 3G(cl of the Thika Tenancy Act could not be said to be 
satisfied by such an indirect connection between the land and the 
general purpose of the Improvement Trust Act. [378 A-BJ 
• 
In construing the words of a statute the context in whiCh the 
words occur. the object of the statute in which the prov•ision is in-
cluded and the policv underlying the statute assume relevance and 
G 
become material, [373 F] 
In the instant case, the object of the Thika Tenancy Act to help 
thika 
is writ large in all the material provisions of the Act. 
In construing s. 30, which provides for an exception to the applica-
bility of beneficent legislation, if two constructions are reasonably 
possible, the Court would be justified in preferring that construction 
B 
which helps to carry out the beneficent purpose of the Act and does 
not undu ?y expand the area or the scope of the exception, that is, the 
exception must be strictly construed. Under the section, it is the 
land which must be reauired and not any fee or charges that may 
be levied against it. Further. there must be a direct connection 
between the land as such and the requirements of the provisions 
of the Improvement Trust Act, and not with the policy of the provi-
sions or the object which they are intended to achieve. In order 
that s. 30(c) should be applicable, the respondent must point 
A 
B 
c 
I 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHEIKH GULF AN Q. SANAT KUMAR GA N'.JULI 
0.J.) 
365 
.ou\ a specific provision of the Improvement Trust Act for the carry-
ing out of which the land as such was required. S€ction 122 of that· 
Act would not help the respondent, because, it would not be possible 
to hold that for carrying out its provisions the land was directly 
required. [376 f, 376 H-377 C, G: 378 HJ 
Moreover, when s. 78A of the Improvement Trust Act, expressly 
says that the land in respect of which betterment fee can be levied, 
is not required for the scheme, the argument that such a land is, 
nevertheless, required for carrying out the provision of s. 71:A, eannot 
be accepted. (377 HJ 
Betterment fee is levied against a land, because its value is in-
creased as a result of the improvement scheme and the Board is 
justified in recouping itself by such levy in respect of the unearned 
increment in the value of the land, and, if the landholder pays the 
fee, he may:apply under s. 25 of the Improvement Trust Act for an 
enhancement of the rent payable by .the tenants; but there is no 
reason why such a landlord should get the additional benefit of 
exemption from the aopl'cation of the provisions of the Thika Tenancy 
Act. Clauses (a) and -(b) of s. 30 -Of that Act indicate that it is 

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