TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court to quash orders dated 24.5.1993 and 30.5.2001 passed by Collector, Pilibhit (for short, the Collector ) and Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly (for short, the Additional Commissioner ) respectively under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, the Act ), declaring that 27.95 acres land purchased by the appellant in Shahi and Khamaria Pul villages of District Pilibhit shall vest in the State Government, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under Section 149(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. In 1991, the appellant decided to set up agro based paper projects in the State of U.P. By resolution dated 14.10.1991, the Board of Directors of the appellant authorised Shri Kamal Oswal (Director), Shri T.R. Sharma (General Manager) and Shri Jai Prakash Kaushal (Authorised Signatory) to negotiate and finalise purchase of land in the State of Uttar Pradesh and/or other States and Union Territories, to sign sale deeds etc. for effective acquisition/transfer of land. Paragraphs (e) and (f) of that resolution read as under: To sign for and on behalf of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged transfer of various parcels of land in favour of the appellant by filing identical suits under Sections 154, 167, 168A and 194 of the Act. The transferors, who were impleaded as parties in all the suits did not contest the same. However, the appellant filed identical written statements in all the cases. In first paragraph of the written statement filed in Suit No.133 of 1993, the appellant admitted all the paragraphs of the suit. In the additional statement, the appellant virtually conceded that the land was purchased in contravention of the Act and stated that it may be allowed to retain 12.5 acres out of the disputed land. This is evinced from English translation of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the written statement which are reproduced below: 2. That all the lands of both the village had been purchased for establishment of Industry after making the payment to the farmers. But I had the knowledge of law in Punjab and was not well conversant with the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act therefore, I purchased the land in question which is more than 12 acres. We had given an application dated 24.10.1991 to the State Government for the permission of establishment of Industry a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector by filing revision under Section 333 of the Act. In the memo of revision, it was claimed that excess land was purchased under the belief that the State Government would grant permission under Section 154(2). It was then urged that although the Board of Directors had given power to Shri T.R. Sharma to appear before any court of law on behalf of the appellant, he was not authorized to enter into a compromise or give consent for retaining the particular land. Another plea taken by the appellant was that the company consists of 8 directors and if each Director is entitled to have a share of 12.5 acres, the purchase made by the appellant will not exceed the prescribed limit. However, at the hearing of the revision petition, the plea that Shri T.R. Sharma had filed written statement and affidavit beyond the scope of his authority appears to have been given up and it was submitted that the general manager had been authorised to pursue the case but he did not do it properly. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision of the appellant and confirmed the order of the Collector by recording following reasons: It is clear from the perusal of records that the defendants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les of association of Nuskar Enterprises Ltd. is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not understandable as to why the certificate of registration under the Companies Act is not produced before the Court. It is also not understandable as to how the Articles of Association of Nuskar Enterprises Ltd. has nexus with the petitioner Company. I am of the view that even if the affidavit dated 19.5.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) of the General Manager of the petitioner Company giving consent to relinquish the land in excess of 12.50 acres in favour of State Government is ignored even then the findings of respondents No.1 and 2 are sustainable for the reasons given hereinabove. The learned Single Judge then referred to the provisions of Sections 152, 154, 166 and 167 of the Act and held that the purchase made by the appellant in excess of 12.50 acres was illegal per se and its case does not fall within the ambit of the exceptions carved out in sub-section (2) of Section 154. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant s plea that surrender made by Shri T.R. Sharma was unauthorized and held that the Collector did not commit any illegality by declaring that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that while deciding the writ petition filed by the appellant against the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, the learned Single Judge was not justified in treating the case as a public interest litigation. 12. Shri T.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the Collector did not commit any error by declaring that the excess land will vest in the State Government because the purchase was made by the appellant without obtaining permission in terms of Section 154 of the Act. Learned counsel relied upon the averments contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant in Suit No. 133/1993 and argued that after having indirectly admitted contravention of Section 154(1) of the Act, the appellant did not have the locus to challenge the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner on the ground that Shri T.R. Sharma was not authorized to give option for retaining the particular parcels of land and the learned Single Judge rightly held that the transfers made in violation of Section 154 were null and void. 13. Before dealing with the respective arguments/submissions, we consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement dated 15.10.1994. This shows that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands. The withholding of the lease agreement from the Additional Commissioner, the High Court and this Court appears to be a part of the strategy adopted by the appellant to keep the quasi-judicial and judicial forums including this Court in dark about the nature of its possession over the excess land and make them believe that it has been subjected to unfair treatment. If the factum of execution of lease agreement and its contents were disclosed to the Additional Commissioner, he would have definitely incorporated the same in order dated 30.5.2001. In that event, the High Court or for that reason this Court would have non suited the appellant at the threshold. However, by concealing a material fact, the appellant succeeded in persuading the High Court and this Court to entertain adventurous litigation instituted by it and pass interim orders. If either of the courts had been apprised of the fact that by virtue of lease deed dated 15.10.1994, the appellant has succeeded in securing temporary legitimacy for its possession over excess land, then there would have been no occasion for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which he has omitted to bring forward. If an applicant does not act with uberrima fides and put every material fact before the Court it will not grant him an injunction, even though there might be facts upon which the injunction might be granted. His Lordship rightly pronounced: The Court, for its own protection, is entitled to say: We refuse this writ without going into the merits of the case on the ground of the conduct of the applicant in bringing the case before us. Warrington, L.J. was also of the same opinion. In a concurring judgment His Lordship observed: It is perfectly well settled that a person who makes an ex parte application to the Court that is to say, in absence of the person who will be affected by that which the Court is asked to do is under an obligation to the Court to make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge, and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. 17. This Court and different High Courts have repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the prescribed authority did not give notice to the tenure holder Shri Praveen Singh (predecessor of the appellant). On a scrutiny of the records, this Court found that the prescribed authority had issued notice to Shri Praveen Singh, which was duly served upon him and held that the appellant is not entitled to relief because he did not approach the High Court with clean hands inasmuch as he made a misleading statement in the writ petition giving an impression that the tenure holder did not know of the proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority. The preface and para 21 of that judgment read as under: For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya (truth) and `Ahimsa (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by it from Bhumidhars was not in violation of Section 154(1) of the Act. Before the Additional Commissioner and the High Court, the appellant did not make a grievance that the Collector had passed order without giving it a reasonable or effective opportunity of hearing. In this view of the matter, the appellant cannot now contend that the Collector did not act in consonance with the rule of audi alteram partem. 22. Though, Shri Manoj Swarup made strenuous efforts to convince the Court that Shri T.R. Sharma had no authority to make tacit admission of the illegality committed in the purchase of land and that he had no right to make an offer for surrender of excess land, we have not felt impressed. A reading of resolution dated 14.10.1991 makes it clear that Shri T.R. Sharma, the then General Manager of the appellant was authorised to take all actions necessary for transfer of land. That apart, in view of lease agreement dated 15.10.1994, which was not produced by the appellant before the Additional Commissioner, the learned Single Judge of the High Court and even this Court (for the first time, the lease agreement came to the fore when a copy thereof was annexed with the count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereby declared that in this sub-section the expression person shall include and be deemed to have included on June 15, 1976 a Co-operative Society : Provided that where the transferee is a co-operative society, the land held by it having been pooled by its members under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 shall not be taken into account in computing the 5.0586 hectares (12.50 acres) land held by it. (2) Subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the land tenures for the time being in force, the State Government may, by general or special order, authorise transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) if it is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered cooperative society or an institution established for a charitable purpose, which does not have land sufficient for its need or that the transfer is in the interest of general public. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the expression family shall mean the transferee, his or her wife or husband (as the case may be) and minor children, and where the transferee is a minor also his or her parents. (3) For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g has been imposed on transfer of land by Bhumidhar. Section 154(1), in no uncertain terms, declares that no Bhumidhar shall be entitled to transfer any land other than tea gardens by sale or gift to any person if holding of the transferee would exceed 12.50 acres (Earlier the prescribed limit was 30 acres but by an amendment it was reduced to 12.50 acres). An explanation was subsequently added to clarify that the word `person shall include and be deemed to have included a cooperative society on June 15, 1976. Proviso to Section 154(1) lays down that where the transferee is a cooperative society, the land held by it having been pooled by its members under Section 77(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of computing 12.50 acres. Under sub-section (2), the State Government is empowered to authorize transfer of land in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) if it is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered cooperative society or an institution established for a charitable purpose, which does not have sufficient land for its need or the transfer is in the interest of general public. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut it differently, by virtue of Section 3(1) of the General Clauses Act, the definition of the word `person contained in Section 4(33) will be deemed to have been engrafted in the Act and the same cannot be given a restricted meaning as suggested by the learned counsel. Rather, in view of the definition contained in Section 4(33) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, the word person appearing in Section 154(1) would include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. This view of ours is strengthened by the language of explanation added to Section 154(1) whereby it was declared that the expression person shall include a cooperative society. The word include is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statue and when it is so used those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. The word include is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale or gift. Though, subsections (2) and (3) of Section 154 empowers the Government to dilute the rigor of the restriction contained in Section 154(1), if that section is read in conjunction with Sections 166 and 167 which provide for consequences of transfer made in contravention of the Act including Section 154(1), the word person appearing in Section 154(1) cannot be construed in a manner which would defeat the object and purpose of legislation. If a narrow meaning is given to the word person appearing in Section 154(1), the purpose of legislation viz., abolition of zamindari and making tillers owner of the land, which is in consonance with the mandate of the object of social justice set out in the preamble and the provisions contained in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, would be substantively defeated because in that event companies, corporations, etc. will be able to grab the land of the tillers by offering them comparatively remunerative prices and again make them landless poor. 28. At this stage, we may notice two precedents which have direct bearing on the interpretation of word person . In Hasmukhlal Dahayabhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others (1976 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. It is true that, but for the provisions of Section 6, subsection (2) of the Act, the term person , which includes individuals, as natural persons, as well as groups or bodies of individuals, as artificial persons, such as a family is, the entitlement to the ceiling area would be possessed by every person, whether artificial or natural. In other words, if Section 6(2) of the Act was not there, each individual member of a family would have been entitled to hold land upto the ceiling limit if it was his or her legally separate property. This follows from the obvious meaning of the term person as well as the inclusive definitions given both in the Act under consideration and in the General Clauses Act. Spouses and minor children, as natural persons, have not been debarred from holding their separate rights to land by the provisions of the Act. It is not the object of the Act to do that. The object of the Act, as set out above, is twofold: firstly, to limit the ceiling area of each holder; and, secondly, to acquire what falls beyond the ceiling limit so that the State may distribute it to more needy persons. It is not disputed that compensation is provided for acquisition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an intention to enlarge the meaning of the word used in the statute. Consequently, the word must be construed as comprehending not only such things which they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. Thus, where a definition uses the word includes , as contrasted from means , the word defined not only bears its ordinary, popular and natural meaning, but in addition also bears the extended statutory meaning (see S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain following Dilworth v. Commr. of Stamps and Jobbins v. Middlesex Country Council). The ordinary, popular and natural meaning of the word person is a specific individual human being . But in law the word person has a slightly different connotation and refers to any entity that is recognised by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Salmond defines person as any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties or as a being, whether human or not, of which rights and duties are the attributes (Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., p. 299). Thus the word person , in law, unless otherwise intended, refers not only to a natural person (male ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duties, including any company or association of persons or body of individuals (whether incorporated or not); and (iii) a Hindu Undivided Family or any other group or unit of persons, the members of which by custom or usage, are joint in estate and residence. 30. In view of the above, the argument of the learned counsel that the word person in Section 154(1) means a human being or a natural person only and that the explanation by which a cooperative society was included in the said word is indicative of the legislature s intention to give a narrow meaning to the word person is liable to be rejected. In our view, the explanation instead of narrowing the meaning of the word person makes it clear that the same would include a non natural person. 31. The submission that if share of the individual Director is taken into consideration, the total land of the appellant would not exceed 12.50 acres is being mentioned only to be rejected in view of the contents of lease agreement. That apart, no evidence was produced before the Collector or the Additional Commissioner to prove that the land was purchased in the name of the Directors of the appellant. Even before the learned Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciation of persons , or in holding that the ten co-owners will be entitled to own only one unit. Having regard to Section 6(2) of the Act, the share of each couple (husband and wife) in the land, plus any other land individually held by them will have to be calculated to find out whether they held any land in excess of the ceiling limit. Therefore, the share of each appellant in the lands jointly purchased, with the addition of the lands held by his spouse, and addition of any other land held by them, will give the basis for determining the surplus land. For example, if a husband s share as co-owner is 20 acres and wife s share as co-owner is 20 acres, and their other individual holding is another 10 acres (all of the same category in C Class), the total holding of the family will be 50 acres (20+20+10 acres) and the surplus will be 14 acres. 32. The submission of Shri Manoj Swarup that a direction may be given to the State Government to accord post facto sanction to the purchase of excess land cannot be entertained much less accepted because the appellant has been found guilty of not coming to the Court with clean hands. In any case, in the absence of any factual foundation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
