STATE OF U.P versus NAND KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 19-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P 
v. 
NANDKUMARAGGARWALANDORS. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Urban land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976-Ss. 2, 6 (I), 33 Claim 
for exemption from ceiling as being agricultural land-It is actual use of the 
A 
B 
land on the relevant date.. that would decide its status as agricultural or C 
otherwise-Though revenue records showed it as agricultural land and as 
per the master plan it was to be for agriculture, it was used for brick making 
on the date on which the Act came into force, and therefore cannot be 
exempted-It is the main use that will decide the actual nature of the land 
even if a portion is used for agricultural-land within an urban agglomeration 
will not be 'urban land' if used for agricultural purposes. 
D 
The question involved in this appeal by the State is, whether the lands 
in question which were actually used for brick making but entered in 
revenue records and stated purpose of which in the master plan was 
agriculture, could be exempted from ceiling under the Urban Land (Ceilings 
Regulations) Act. The Competent authority and the District Judge, on appeal, E 
had refused exemption from ceiling, but the High court, relying on the 
revenue records and the stated purpose in the Master plan, held that it was 
agricultural land and therefore. not subject to ceiling. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. High Court was not correct in holding that the land was F 
being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture merely on the strength of 
the purpose in the master plan which is specified as agriculture (Krishi 
Bhumi) and that the land is entered in the revenue records. High court has 
wrongly applied Explanation B to clause (o) of section 2 of the Urban ceiling 
Act. Simply because land is entered in the revenue record would not mean G 
that it is being used mainly for the purpose of agriculture. Here the land is 
mainly usedJor the purpose of brick kiln business of the first respondent. 
It is not material if a small portion of the land was used for the purpose of 
agriculture as well. (235-D-F( 
2. An affidavit was filed by the first respondent before the Secretary, H 
229 
230 
SUPREME COUP-T REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Local Self Government, Lucknow for the purpose of seeking exclusion of the 
land in village Para from the ceiling 'operations'. This affidavit of the 1st 
respondent showed that the land in question was being used mainly for the 
purpose of brick kiln business. In the master plan the area in question is 
no doubt shown as agriculture. From the schedule mentioned in the definition 
B of urban agglomeration it could be seen that area in question falls within 
urban agglomeration as it is situated within the peripheral area of the 
Municipal Corporation of Lucknow (Lucknow Naga;- Mahapalika). The land 
in question will not be urban land though situated within the limits of an 
urban agglomoration, if it is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. 
Operating of a Bhatta cannot certainly be an agriculture purpose. 
C 
1231-G; 234-G-Hj 
3. It is correct that the land in question is entered in the revenue 
record but at the same time the record shows that the land is being used for 
Bhatta. The foremost question is whether the land in question though 
agricultural was being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture on the 
D appointed day Seeing the definition and the affidavit of the 1st respondent 
dated August 13, 1976 the answer is obvious that land in question is not 
being used for the purpose of agriculture. 1235-BI 
4. Agriculture under the explanation to clause (o) has a limited. 
meaning. It includes horticulture but does not include cultivation of every 
E type of vegetation or rearing of animals or birds. That apart, to hold that land 
is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture it is not enough even ifthe land 
is entered in revenue records before the appointed day used for the purpose 
of agriculture or even if so entered the master plan gives purpose of the 
land other than agriculture. In the present case though (B) and (C) to the 
F 
explanation are satisfied (A) is not, as the purpose to which the land, though 
agriculture and so entered in the revenue records, was being used for 
running of brick-kiln. 1235-C-DI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7168 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20. IO. 89 of the High Court in W.P. 
G No. 1242of1986. 
G. K. Mathur, Arvind Kr. Shukla and Ashok K. 

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