Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
S. P. WATEL AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.(with connected appeals)
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/03/1973
BENCH:
DWIVEDI, S.N.
BENCH:
DWIVEDI, S.N.
SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)
RAY, A.N.
PALEKAR, D.G.
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 1293 1973 SCR (3) 783
1973 SCC (2) 238
ACT:
U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1956--Land leased for planting a grove, erecting buildings
etc.--Does not fall exclusively under s. 2(1)(d)-Section
2(1)(d) must be interpreted as relating to agricultural land
only--Thus construed if protected by Art. 31A of the
Constitution--Land in question not proved to be
’agricultural area’--Notification under s. 8 of Act cannot
be issued in respect of it--Abatement of suits and appeals
under Rule 39 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Rules 1957.
HEADNOTE:
Plot No. 4635A (old number 5199) admeasuring bigha and 2
biswas and located in the Meerut municipal area was leased
by the Lala Nanak Chand Trust to the predecessor-in-interest
of the present respondents. According to the lease deed
dated June 23, 1926 the lease was granted "for the purpose
of planting a grove, erecting buildings and digging wells
etc.". The period of the lease was 30 years but the lessor
agreed that on the expiration of that period he would at the
request of the lessee renew the lease for another 30 years.
On the expiry of the initial period of 30 years on July 1,
1956 the lessor Trust instituted a suit for recovery of
possession of the aforesaid land. The suit was dismissed by
the trial court but decreed by the first appellate court.
The respondents thereafter, on permission granted by the
said first appellate court instituted a suit for the
specific performance of the agreement to re-let the land for
another term of 30 years. The suit was dismissed on the
ground of limitation by the trial court, as well as the
first appellate court. In both the suits the present
respondents filed second appeals in the High Court. While
these appeals were pending the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 was enforced in the
city of Meerut. The land in dispute was declared an
agricultural area’ under the Act and a notification under s.
8 of the Act vesting the land in the State was issued on
July 16, 1964. Rule 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1957 provided
for abatement of certain suits and appeals. Applying the
rule the High Court abated the two aforesaid appeals filed
by the respondents before it. The Trustees appealed to this
Court by special leave. They also filed a writ petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying that the notifica-
tion under s., 8 of the Act dated July 16, 1964 be quashed
as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the
Constitution. It was further contended that s. 2(1)(d) of
the Act whereby land held on lease duly executed before the
first day of July 1955 for the purposes of erecting
buildings thereon was included in the term ’agricultural
area’ was protected by Art. 31-A of the Constitution.
HELD : (i) The lease was not exclusively a building lease.
Admittedly no building had been constructed. The
respondents claimed to have planted a grove. If so, the
land would be covered by s. 2(1)(c)(viii) The lease could
not therefore be held to fall exclusively under s. 2(1)(d).
[790B]
784
(ii) In Durga Prasad’s case the Allahabad High Court has
pointed out the history of cl. (d). The High Court has
taken the view that s. 2(1)(d) is limited to lands which are
being used for agricultural purposes. The conclusion must
be held to be correct though for different reasons, On this
construction of s. 2(1)(d) it cannot be said that this
provision is not connected with agricultural reforms. It
could accordingly receive the protection of Art. 31A and
would be immune from attack-on the ground of violation of
Articles 14, 19 and 31. [792C]
Durga Prasad v. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others,
A.I.R. 1970 All. 159, referred to.
(iii) The report of the Commission would not show that the
land in dispute was a grove within the meaning of s. 2(6) of
the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. As the appellants had given the
old number of the plot in their petition the Government did
not reply to the allegation in the petition. Accordingly it
was not possible to express any concluded opinion on the
question whether the land in dispute was an ’agricultural
area’ on the date specified under s. 2(1) and was being used
for horticulture., The issue must be decided afresh by the
appropriate authority under the Act. If it is held by him
that the land in dispute is an ’agricultural area’ and the
State Government issues a notification under s. 8 of the Act
with respect to the land, the appeals will be, disposed of
by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. [793C]
[Notification dated June 16, 1964 quashed, and orders of the
High Court abating the appeals and suits set aside.]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 105 of 1969.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for
the enforcement of fundamental rights and Civil and Appeals
Nos. 1402 and 1403 of 1969.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
July 25, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad in
Second Appeal Nos. 425 of 1960 and 1649 of 1962.
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal for the petitioners (in writ
petition) and for the appellants (in appeals)
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents (in writ
petition)
C. B. Agarwala and M. Al. Kshatriya, for the respondents
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
(in appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DWIVEDI, J.-These three cases have a common origin and are
accordingly being disposed of by a common judgment.
The city of Meerut is a municipality in Uttar Pradesh. Plot
No. 4635A (old number 5199) is located therein. It has an
area of bigha and 2 biswas. It formed part of the zamindari
estate belonging to Lala Nanak Chand Trust. The trust is a
charitable trust vested in the Treasurer of Charitable
Endowments
785
and is managed by the Collector of Meerut through a
committee of trustees. On June 23, 1926, a lease deed was
executed on behalf of the trust and in favour of one
Bateshwar Dayal. By the deed the aforesaid plot was let to
Bateshwar Dayal. The lease was granted "for the purpose of
planting a grove, erecting buildings and digging wells etc."
The yearly rent was fixed at Rs. 12/8/-. The lease was a
for a terms of 30 years with effect from June 1, 1926. The
lessee agreed to surrender the land and all buildings
standing thereon to the lessor on the expiry of the period
of lease. The buildings would become the property of the
lessor. He would have them without paying any compensation
to the lessee. The lessor agreed that on the expiration of
the period of lease he would at the request of the lessee
grant to the lessee a new lease for another term of 30
years.
The initial period of 30 years expired on July 1, 1956.
Thereupon the trust instituted suit No. 690 of 1956 for
recovery of possession over the aforesaid land from
Bateshwar Dayal. During pendency of this suit Bateshyar
Dayal died on March 6, 1958. The suit was dismissed by the
trial court on October 24, 1958. It was, however, decreed
by the first appellate court on November 30, 1959. The
appellate court granted six months’ time to the defendants
to institute a suit in the appropriate court for specific
performance of the agreement to re-let for another term of
30 years.
Bhagwat Dayal and others, heirs of Bateshwar Dayal, then
instituted suit No. 34 of 1960 in the appropriate court for
specific performance of the agreement to re-let the land for
another term of 30 years. The Trust contested this suit,
inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
This plea was upheld by the trial court and the suit was
dismissed on October 30, 1961. The first appellate court
affirmed, the decree of the trial court on March 23, 1962.
Bhagwat Dayal and other’s filed a second appeal in the
Allahabad High Court against the judgment and decree passed
in the suit filed by the Trust on January 5, 1960. They
also filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree
in their own suit on April 23, 1962.
While those appeals were pending, the U.P. Urban Area
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter
called the Act) was enforced in the city of Meerut. The
land in dispute was declared "agricultural area" under the
said Act. Thereafter a notification was issued on June 16,
1964 under s. 8 of the Act vesting the land in the State.
786
Bhagwat Dayal then moved an application before the High
Court for abating the two appeals as well as the two suits
out of which those appeals had arisen in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. The High Court passed an order
abating both the suits and appeals. The order was made on
July 25, 1968. Against this order the appellants have filed
two appeals in this Court by special leave.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
The appellants say that they have filed the writ petition
No. 105 of 1969 byway of abundant caution. The prayer in
the petition is that the notification issued under s. 8 of
the Act should be quashed. Itis alleged in paragraph 4
of the petition that the disputed plotis a part of Kothi
Babu Wali. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is
reiterated that the disputed plot forms part of a
residential Kothi within the municipality of Meerut and is
nonagricultural area. It is alleged that the impugned
notification is violative of the provisions of Articles 14,
19 (1) (f) and 3 1 of the Constitution and is accordingly
unconstitutional.
Before mentioning the arguments of Shri R. K. Garg, counsel
for the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at the
relevant provisions of the Act. The preamble to the Act
states that it is expedient to provide for the abolition of
Zamindari system in agricultural areas situate in urban
areas in Uttar Pradesh and "for the acquisition of the
rights, title and interest of intermediaries between the
tiller of the soil and the State in such areas and for the
introduction of the land reforms therein." Section 2 in the
definition clause, Sub-section (1) of it defines the
expression "agricultural area". As this provision is
important for this case, we are setting out its relevant
portion.
"Agricultural area" as respects any urban area means an area
which, with reference to such date as the State Government
may notify in that behalf, is-
(a) in the possession of or held or deemed to
be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht
or an intermediary’s grove;
(b) held as a grove by or in the personal
cultivation of a permanent lessee in Avadh; or
(c) included in the holding of-
(i) a fixed-rate tenant,
(ii)an ex-proprietary tenant,
(iii)an occupancy tenant,
(iv)a tenant holding on special terms in
Avadh.
(v) a rent-free grantee,
(vi)a grantee at a favourable rate of rent.
787
(vii)a hereditary tenant,
(viii)a grove-holder,
(ix)a sub-tenant referred to in sub-section
(4) of section 47 of the U.P. Tenancy Act,.
1938, or
(x) a non-occupancy tenant of land other than
land referred to in sub-section (3) of Section
30 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939,
and is used by the holder thereof for purposes
of agriculture or horticulture :
Provided always that land which on the date
aforesaid is occupied by building not being
"improvements" as defined in Section 3 of the
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, and land appurtenant
to such buildings. shall not be deemed to be
agricultural area.
(d) held on a lease duly executed before the
first day of July, 1955 for the purposes of
erecting buildings thereon; or
(e) held or occupied by an occupier........
Section 2(7) defines an "intermediary", inter alia, as a
proprietor of an agricultural area, Section 2 (12) defines
"proprietor" as a person owning whether in trust or for his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
own benefits an agricultural area. Section 2(16) states
that the words and expressions, "grove", "grove-holder",
"grove-land" and "holding"shall have the meaning assigned to
them in the U.P Tenancy Act, 1939. Section 3 provides for
demarcation of agricultural area in urban areas. Section 4
provides for publication of preliminary proposals with
respect to demarcation of agricultural areas. It provides
also for inviting objections to the proposals. Final de-
marcation is made by the Commissioner under s. 5. Section 8
provides that after agricultural areas have been demarcated
under s. 5, the State Government may, at any time by
notification in the gazette, declare that as from a date to
’be specified all such areas situate in the urban area shall
vest in the State. From that date all such agricultural
areas shall stand transferred to and vest in the State free
from all encumbrances. Section 10 provides for the
consequences of vesting. All rights, title and interest of
an intermediary in an agricultural area cease and become
vested ill the State free from all encumbrances. All suits
and proceedings of the nature to be prescribed by rules, and
pending in any court,, on the date of vesting, shall be
stayed.
Section 17(1) is important for our purposes, and we are
quoting the material portion of it.
788
"Section 17. Settlement of certain lands with
intermediaries or cultivators as bhumidhars-
(1) subject to the provisions of Section 16
and 18-
(a) all lands in an agricultural area-
(i) in possession of, or held or deemed to be
held by an intermediary as Sir, khudkasht or
an intermediary’s grove,
(ii)held as a grove by, or in the personal
cultivation of a permanent lessee in Avadh,
(iii) held ’by a fixed-rate tenant or a rent-
free as such, or (iv)held as such by-
(i) an occupancy tenant,
(ii) a hereditary tenant,
(iii)a tenant on patta dawami or istamrari or
(iv) held by a grove-holder
(1) an occupancy tenant possessing the right
(ii) a hereditary tenant to transfer
(iii) a tenant on patta the holding by sale.
dawami or istamarari
on the date immediately preceding the date of
vesting, and
(b) all lands in an agricultural area held on
lease duly made before the first day of July,
1955, for the purpose of erecting building
thereon,
shall be deemed to be settled by the State
Government with such intermediary, lessee,
tenant, grantee or groveholder, as the case
may be, who shall subject to the provisions of
this Act, be entitled to take or retain
possession as a bhumidhar thereof."
Section 19(j) provides that notwithstanding anything con-
tained in the Act, every person who, on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting occupied or held land in an
agricultural area as a sub-lessee from a person holding land
under a lease referred to in cl. (b) of sub-section (1)
shall be deemed to be an asami thereof. Section 20(1)
provides that a bhumidhar of the land referred to in cl. (b)
of sub-s.(1) of S. 17, may, within one year from the date of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
vesting, apply to the Assistant Collector, Incharge of the
Sub-Division for ejectment of asami belonging to the class
mentioned in S. 19(j) on the ground that he wants to use the
land held by the asami for the purpose of erecting buildings
thereon. If the Assistant Collector is satisfied after
inquiry that the applicant intends to use the land for the
purpose of erecting buildings thereon, be may order
ejectment of the asami from such land. After ejectment of
the asami, the applicant shall erect a building thereon
within three years of the date of the order of ejectment.
If the bhumidhar does not file an application for ejectment
or if the order of ejectment passed on any application is
not executed within the prescribed period of limitation, the
asami shall become a sirdar of the land. The rights, title
and
789
interest of the bhumidhar shall be deemed to have been
acquired under s. 10, "as if the bhumidhar were an
intermediary on the date of vesting." If the bhumidhar fails
to erect buildings within three years, he.shall be liable to
pay to the asami or any person claiming through him an
amount equal to five times the rent payable by asami at the
time of his ejectment.
According to s. 24 an intermediary whose right, title or
interest in any agricultural area is acquired under the Act
shall be entitled to receive compensation as provided for
therein.
Rules have been framed under the Act. They are known as the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reform Rules, 1957. Rule 38 provides for stay, inter alia,
of suits and appeals arising under s. 180 of the U.P.
Tenancy Act or of a similar nature pending in a civil court.
Rule 39 provides for abatment of such suits and appeals. In
the present case the second appeals and the suits from which
they had arisen were abated under this rule by the High
Court.
Section 2(6) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 defines "grove-
land" as meaning "any specific piece of land in a mahal or
mahals having trees planted thereon in such numbers that
they preclude, .or when full grown will preclude the land or
any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily
for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute
a grove." Section 2(7) defines the word "holding". It means
a parcel or parcels of land held under one lease. Section
2(10) defines the word "land" as meaning land which is let
or held for growing of crops, or as grove-land or for
pasturage. It does not include land for the time being
occupied by buildings or appurtenant thereto other than the
buildings which are improvements. The word "grove-holder"
is defined in s. 205 of the said Act. A person who has
planted a grove on land which was let or granted to him by a
landlord for the purpose of planting a grove is called a
"grove-holder" of the grove.
The first argument_ of Shri Garg is that the lease involved
in ’these cases was a lease for the purpose of erecting
buildings and that accordingly it falls within the purview
of cl. (d) of sub-section (1) of s. 2 of the Act. It is
urged that cl. (d) is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of
the Constitution and is invalid. On that premise being
correct, it is further said that the land in dispute will
not be an agricultural area within the meaning of the said
expression under the Act. Consequently, the notification of
the State Government acquiring the land in dispute is
invalid.
The lease is "for the purpose of planting a grove, erecting
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
buildings and digging well etc." It may be observed that the
lease is not an exclusively building lease. Instead of
erecting buildings,
790
the lessee could, plant a grove. Admittedly no buildings
have been ,constructed. The case of the respondents was
that Bateshwar Dayal had planted a grove. If Bateshwar
Dayal had planted a grove and if the grove was existing on
the date specified under s. 2 of the Act and was then being
used by the respondents as a grove the land in dispute would
be covered ’by s. 2 ( 1 ) (c) (viii) ,of the Act. In that
event it will be out of the purview of s. 2(1) (d) of the
Act. As the lease is liable to be placed under either of
these two, classes, it will not be correct to place it
exclusively ,,under cl. (d).
The Act as a whole is protected by Article 31A of the
Constitution. Shri Garg’s contention, however, is that as
s. 2 (1) (d) is not at all connected with agricultural
reforms, it cannot receive the protection of Article 31A and
will be open to challenge for violation of Articles 14, 19
and 31. In terms S. 2(1)(d) does not appear to be connected
with the object of agricultural reform. But a close
scrutiny of its context and the object of the Act would
,reveal that it is so connected.
All other clauses of s. 2(1) except cl. (d), are clearly
connected with the object of agricultural reform. They
include in an "agricultural area" only such land as is being
used for growing crop or as a grove or as a pasture land on
the date specified in s. 2 (1). The proviso to s. 2 (1) (c)
expressly excludes from "agricultural area" land which is
occupied by buildings, not being improvements, and land
appurtenant to such buildings. Having regard to this
proviso, it is difficult to believe that s. 2 (1 ) (d) was
intended by the legislature to apply to land which is not an
agricultural area. "Agriculture" means "the science and the
art of cultivating the soil; including the gathering in of
the crops, and The rearing of live-stock; farming (in the
widest sense)". (Shorter ,Oxford Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol.
I, p.37). So, ordinarily "agricultural area" would mean an
area used for cultivation or farming. ’Section 2(1)
includes groves also. Clause (d) should take its colour
from this inherent meaning of "agricultural area" which is
being defined in s. 2(1).
section 17(1) confers bhumidhari rights on certain classes
of persons over certain kinds of lands. Section 17(1) has
two clauses (a) and (b). Lands specified in cl. (a) are
used for growing crops or as a grove. It is significant to
observe the difference between the language of s. 2 (1) (d)
and s. 17 (1) (b) While section 2(1)(d) refers to
"agricultural area", section 17(1)(b) is expressly limited
to "lands in agricultural area held on lease. for the
purpose of erecting buildings thereon." As the subject
matter of S. 2(1)(d) and s. 17(1)(b) should be identical, it
appears to us that the expression "agricultural area’ in s.
2 (1) (d) should be construed as "lands in agricultural
area". If the defini-
791
tion of "land" in the U.P. Tenancy Act is applied to s. 17 (
1), as it should be, section 17(1)(b) will confer
bhumindhari rights on a lessee of land which is used for
growing crops or as a grove or as a pasture land although
the lease may have been granted for erecting buildings. The
marginal note to the section supports this construction.
Section 19(j) provides that a sub-lessee from a person
"holding land under a lease referred to in cl. (b) of sub-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
section (1) of s. 17". shall be an asami. This provision
also shows that the agricultural area referred to in s. 2(1)
(d) should on the relevant date be used for growing crops or
as a grove or as a pasture land.
It is not possible to take the view that s. 2 (1) (d)
compasses a wider geography than s. 17(1) (b). Such a
construction would create an anomaly. The lessee would
become bhumidhar of only such portion of the land as is
being used ’,or growing crops or as a grove or as a pasture
land. The rest of the agricultural area let out to him for
the purpose of erecting buildings would vest in the
Government. But he would get no compensation for that
portion, for under s. 24 compensation is payable only to an
intermediary. But he is not an "intermediary" as defined in
s. 2(7), nor a sub-intermediary as defined in s. 2(14). lie
is deemed to be an intermediary for a limited purpose under
s. 20(4) but that provision is not material for our purpose.
This anomaly will not result if "agricultural area" in s.
2(1) (d) and ’land in an agricultural’ area in s. 17 (1) (b)
are construed as perfectly over-lapping.
The preamble to the Act shows that the object of the Act is
to acquire right, title or interest of intermediaries
between the tiller of the, soil and the State and for the
introduction of land reforms therein. Having regard to the
context already pointed out and this object of the Act it
seems to us that s. 2 (1) (d), though apparently expressed
in wide language, is limited to lands which, are on the
relevant date being used for growing crops or as grove or as
pasture land. It does not apply to lands which are not
being so used.
The history of the framing of s. 2 (1) (d) fortifies this
inference. The Bill which consummated in the Act was
introduced in the Legislative Assembly on August 6, 1955.
It was referred to a Joint Select Committee. The Joint
Select Committee’s report and the Bill as amended by it were
published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, dated February 4,
1956. Clause (d) of s. 2(1) was incorporated in the amended
Bill by the Joint Select Committee. It read as follows :
"held on a lease duly executed before the first day of July,
1955 for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon, but
which is being used for the purposes of agriculture either
by the bolder thereof
792
or by any person claiming under him." Clause (d) was passed
in this form by the Legislative Assembly on December 3,
1956. The Bill then went to the Legislative Council. But
before reaching there it was pruned by the Secretary of the
Assembly. He deleted the last part of cl. (d) as passed by
the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council passed
cl. (d) as pruned by the Legislative Secretary. Thereafter
the Bill received the assent of the Governor and of the
President. It seems that the Secretary thought that the
deleted portion of cl. (d) was redundant; and so he
eliminated it. In Durga Prasad versus Board of Revenue U.P.
Allahabad and others,(1) the Allahabad High Court has
pointed out this history of cl. (d). The High Court has
taken the view that s. 2(1) (d) is limited to lands which
are being used for agricultural purposes. We have come to
the same conclusion though for different reasons.
On this construction of s. 2 (1) (d) it cannot ’be said that
this provision is not connected with agricultural reforms.
It would accordingly receive the protection of Art. 31A and
would be immune from attack on the ground of violation of
Articles 14, 19 and 31.
It would follow from the foregoing discussion that only such
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
lands as are being used for growing crops or as grove or as
pasture land may be acquired under the Act. It is alleged
in the writ petition that the land in dispute is a part of
kothi Babu Wali and was not used for agricultural purposes.
The petition mentions the old number of the plot which was
5199. The new number of the plot is 4635A. The State
Government has filed a counteraffidavit. They have assumed
that the petition refers to the plot now given the new
number 5199. The counter-affidavit does not deal with the
disputed plot now numbered 4635A. But the description of
the plot in dispute given in the petition leaves no room for
doubt about the identity of the plot. It is strange that
the counter-affidavit did not squarely deal with the
allegations in the petition. The appellants’ allegation
that the land in dispute is non-agricultural land and forms
part of a residential kothi remains unanswered in the
counter-affidavit.
In the suit the respondent’s case was that Bateshwar Dayal,
their predecessor-in-interest, had planted a grove on the
land in dispute. The trial court had appointed a
Commissioner for finding out whether there stood a grove on
the land in dispute. On October 16, 1956, the Commissioner
submitted his report to the trial court. It appears from
his report that about a half of the plot towards the western
side was then "quite vacant." On the western boundary of the
plot there stood two sheesham and three mango trees; on the
northern ’boundary of the plot there were four
(1) A.I.R. 1970 All 159.
793
guava trees, one plum tree and a thorny tree. In the
eastern half of the plot there were about 18 or 19
"scattered guava trees". Trees standing on the boundary of
the plot will not prevent the use of the land for a purpose
other than grove. The western half could be used for any
other purpose. In the eastern half the 18 or 19
"scattered" guava trees could apparently not prevent the use
of the land for any other purpose. The report of the Com-
missioner would not show that the land in dispute was a
grove within the meaning of s. 2(6) of the U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939. As the appellants had given the old number of the
plot in their petition, the Government did not reply to the
allegations in the petition. Accordingly, it is not
possible to express any concluded opinion on the question
whether the land in dispute was an "agricultural area" on
the date specified under s. 2(1) and was being used for
horticulture. The issue should now be decided afresh by the
appropriate authority under the Act.,
in the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the
Government notification under s. 8 of the Act, dated June
16, 1964 with respect to the land in dispute. We direct the
Government to proceed afresh with respect to the land in
dispute in accordance with ss. 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Act. If
it is found in the course of enquiry under ss. 3, 4, and 5
that the land in dispute was an ,.,agricultural area" and
was being used for agriculture or horticulture on the
relevant date, it will be open to the Government to issue a
notification with respect to it under s. 8. If, on the other
hand, it is found in that enquiry that it was not an
"agricultural-area" on the said date, no notification under
s. 8 should be issued with respect to it. The appeals are
also allowed. The orders of the High Court abating the
appeals and the suits are set aside. The High Court will
restore the appeals and the suits to their original numbers.
The appeals will be decided on merits when the appropriate
authority under s. 5 of the Act has held that the land in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
dispute is not an "agricultural area". If it is held by him
,that the land in dispute is an "agricultural area" and the
State Government issues a notification under s. 8 of the Act
with respect to the land, the appeals will be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the
circumstances of this case parties shall bear their own
cost,,.
G.C. Appeals allowed.
794