Appeal No 45559
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 16 1956 of the former 429 Nagpur High Court in Misc
Petition No 448 of 1954
N section Bindra and D Gupta for the appellants
Purshottam Trikamdas G J Ghate and Naunit Lal for the respondents
April 6
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR J
The respondent was a proprietor of mauza Bhivapur Tehsil Umerer District Nagpur
His proprietary interest in the village was abolished by the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates Mahals Alienated Lands Act 1950 MP 1 of 1951
By virtue of section 4 of the Act ill rights titles and interests among others in all pathways village sites hats bazars and melas in Bhivapur vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of the State free from all encumbrances under section 41a of the Act
Under the provisions of the those rights vested in the State of Bombay and now by virtue of Bombay Re Organisation Act 1960 11 of 1960 in the State of Maharashtra
The provisions of section 41a are as follows  All rights title and interest vesting in the proprietor or any person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor in such area including land cultivable or barren grass land scrub jungle forest trees fisheries wells tanks ponds waterchannels ferries pathways village sites hats bazars and melas  shall cease and be vested in the State for purposes of the State free of all encumbrances and the mortgage debt or charge or any proprietary right shall be a charge on the amount of compensation payable for such proprietary right to the proprietor under the provisions if this Act 430 After the Act came into operation proceedings for compensation in respect of the village Bhivapur were started in the court of the Compensation Officer Umrer in Revenue case No 5831 A 41950 51 decided on January 19 1952
The Compensation Officer held that 0
14 acres of land out of Khasra No 611 which is recorded in the village papers as abadi wherein a bazar is held should be settled with the respondent under section 5a
On a portion of the land which was used for bazar ottas and chabutras with or without sheds and separated by passages exist
It is common ground that they belong to the respondent
It is also common ground that the land covered by ottas and chabutras on which sheds have been constructed were ordered to be settled on the respondent in the revenue case referred to above
The respondent s contention however was that not only the sheds and the land on which those sheds were erected but also the open uncovered ottas and chabutras should also have been settled with him by virtue of the provisions of section 5a of the Act along with the land appurtenant to those structures
The total area of this land according to him is 285 acres
The respondent therefore preferred an appeal against the order of the Compensation Officer which directed settling only 014 acres of land on him
That appeal was
however dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of Land Reforms and Additional Commissioner of Settlement Madhya Pradesh on March 28 1952
The respondent thereafter was asked to remove his ottas and chabutras
Even so the matter of settling land covered
by ottas and chabutras on the expropriators was being considered by Government
On May 16 1952 a press note was issued by the Directorate of Information and Publicity Government of Madhya Pradesh the material portion of which runs thus The Government consider that the option 431 given to expropriators to remove the material etc might cause hardship to them in such cases
Government have therefore decided on the following lines of action in such matters i where the ottas and chabutras were constructed in brick and stone they should be allowed to remain with the exproprietors and the land thereunder should be settled with them under section 5a of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act 1950 1 of 1951 on terms and conditions determined by the Government and ii where the ottas and chabutras are in mud the land Under them should be deemed to have vested in the State Government
But after this press note was issued the Government apparently on the advice of its law officers issued instructions to the Deputy Commissioners on June 22 1954 to give one month s notice all ex proprietors to remove the materials clear the site of ottas and chabutras other than those on which there were sheds
In pursuance of this a notice was issued to the respondent on July 13 1954
Feeling aggrieved by this the respondent preferred a petition under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Nagpur for issue of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or other appropriate to writ to quash the orders passed by the Commpensation Officer and the appellate authority as well as the order of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh dated June 22 1954 and the notice issued in pursuance thereto on July 13 1954
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders and directed the State Government to settle the on tire area of Khasra No 61 1 of Bhivapur 432 with the respondent on such terms and conditions as may be determined by it
It may be mentioned that the entire area of Khasra No 611 is 1285 acres or so
The State of Madhya Pradesh sought a certificate from the High Court under article 1331c of the Constitution
But the certificate was not granted
Thereupon a special leave petition was made before this Court under article 136 of the Constitution
Leave was granted by this Court by its order dated March 18 1957
That is how the appeal has come up before us
It may be mentioned that the High Court granted the petition of the respondent on the view that ottas and chabutras etc
 are buildings within the meaning of section 5a of the Act and that consequently the State Government was bound to settle the land covered by them with ex proprietors along with land appurtenant to those structures
In the application made before the High Court for grant of certificate the following three grounds were raised 5
For that the total market area as claimed by the non applicant being only 285 the entire abadi area of 1285 acres in Khasra No 611 could not be granted and settled with the ex proprietor
For that the ottas and chabutras in the bazar area could not be held to be buildings contemplated under section 51a read with section 4 1 a of the Act 1 of 1941 and could not be settled with the ex proprietor under the law
For that the buildings envisaged in the provisions 51a are those buildings which are situated in the abadi and not those stand ing in bazars even though the bazar may also be located in the abadi and that ottas and chabutras etc in the bazar being an integral part thereof are clearly different from those other 433 buildings used for agricultural or domestic purposes
 It would however appear from para
2 of the order of the High Court refusing certificate that the learned Advocate General for the State did not challenge the correctness of the meaning given by the High Court to the word buildings in section 5a of the Act
But the contention he pressed was that the words ottas and chabutras must be restricted to structures standing on the abadi of the village excluding that on which bazar was held which under section 41a vests in the State
Before us however Mr Bindra reiterated the contention which was originally pressed in the High Court that ottas and chabutras cannot be regarded as buildings within the meaning of that word in section 5a of the Act
According to him the concession made by the learned Advocate General was on a question of law and the State is entitled to withdraw that concession
In our opinion the question whether ottas and chabutras fall within the term  buildings is not purely one of law and the State is not entitled to withdraw that concession
It would also appear from grounds 5 and 6 in the special leave petition that what was really sought to be urged before this Court was the contention actually pressed by the learned Advocate General in support of the application for grant of certificate
All the same we allowed Mr Bindra to urge the contention that ottas and chabutras are not included in the term buildings in section 5a of the Act
The relevant portion of section 5a of the Act reads thus Subject to the provisions in sections 47 and 63 all open enclosures used for agricultural of domestic purposes and in continuous possession for twelve years immediately before 1948 49 all open house sites purchased for 434 consideration all buildings   within the limits of a village site belonging to or held by the out going proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person as the case may be and the land thereof with the areas appurtenant thereto shall be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine Village site means the abadi in an estate or a mahal
Section 5a is an exception to section 41a of the Act
No doubt section 41a provides for the vesting in the State of the land on which bazar is held
But reading that section along with section 5a it is clear that where any buildings belonging to the proprietor exist on any portion of the abadi land that land together with the land appurtenant to those buildings bad to be settled with the ex proprietor
Land on which the bazar is held is part of the village abadi land and therefore all buildings standing on such land would fall within section 5a of the Act and would have to be settled with the ex proprietor
The only question therefore is whether ottas and chabutras can be regarded as buildings
A perusal of that provision would show that where the ex proprietor has spent money on constructing something within the limits of the village sites that thing had to be settled with him
The word buildings should therefore be given its literal meaning as something which is built
Mr Bindra s contention however is that for a structure to be regarded as a building it should have walls and a roof and in support of this contention lie relied upon the decision in Moir vs Williams 1 In that case Lord Esher has observed that the term building generally means all 1 435 enclosures of brick and stone covered by a roof
But he has also made it clear that the meaning to be given to that word must depend upon the enactment in which the word is used and the context in which it is used
There what was being considered was the provisions of the Metropolitan Buildings Act 1855 10  19 Vict
c 122 which dealt with residential houses
He also relied upon the decision in Morrison vs Commissioners of Inland Revenne 1
That was a case under the Finance 10 Miw
7 c 8
The observations on which he relied are as follows  It is quite clear that the expression buildings  does not mean everything that can by any means be described as built it means buildings in a more narrow sense than struct ures because there are other structures of a limited class which under the terms of the sub section may also be taken into considera tion
 Far from these observations helping him they clearly show that the natural or ordinary meaning to be given to the word Buildings is something which has been built
That meaning would be modified if the provisions of law justify giving some other meaning
Finally he relied upon the decision in Samuel Small vs Parkway Auto Supplies 2
The observations relied on by him are as follows The word building  in its ordinary sense denotes a structure or edifice including a space within its walls and usually covered with a roof such as a house a church a shop a barn or a shed  The word building  cannot be held to include every Species of erection on land such as fences gates or other like structures
Taken 1 1915 I K B 176 at 722
2 49 AIR 1361 at 1363
436 in its broadest sense it can mean only an erection intended for use and occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade manufacture ornament or use constituting a fabric or edifice such as a house a store a church a shed 
These observations must Be considered in the context of the Act which was being construed and in the context in which they were made
There the Court bad to consider whether erection of gasoline pumps and construction of under ground gasoline tanks and pits with concrete sides sunken in the ground are within a restrictive covenant that no building of any kind shall be erected or maintained within a certain distance of a street
In the particular context buildings had according to the Court to be given its popular meaning
That case therefore does not assist the appellants
In our opinion the High Court was quite right in holding that even uncovered ottas and chabutras fall within the term building as used in section 5a of the Act and therefore along with the land appurtenant to them they must be settled with the respondent
Mr Bindra pointed out that the High Court was in error in asking the Government to settle the whole of Khasra No611 on the respondent because whereas its area is 1285 acres the land covered by the structures including the appurtenant land does not measure more than 285 acres
Mr Purushottam Trikamdas learned counsel for the respondent readily conceded this fact and said that the High Court has committed an error through an oversight and that all that the respondent wants is 285 acres of land and nothing more
Mr Bindra then said that it would not be proper to give a direction to the Government to settle any particular area of the land and it should be left to the revenue authorities 437 to determine the precise area covered by the structures and the passages separating these various structures
We agree with him
It would be sufficient to direct the Government to settle with the respondent the whole of the land covered by the structures as well as land appurtenant to those structures from out of Khasra No 611
What the area of that land would be is a matter to be determined during the settlement proceedings
With this modification we dismiss the appeal with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The proprietary interest of the respondent in his village was abolished by the M P Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates Mahals Alienated Lands Act 1950 and all rights title and interest were vested in the State by section 4
Section 5a of the Act provide that where any buildings belonging to the proprietor exist on any portion of the abadi land that land together with the land appurtenant to those buildings shall be settled with the ex proprietor
Land covered by ottas and chabutras on which sheds had been constructed was settled with the respondent but not the land on which open uncovered ottas and chabutras existed
Held that the respondent was entitled under section 5a of the Act to have the land on which uncovered ottas an chabutras existed as also the land appurtenant thereto settled with him
Uncovered ottas and chabutras fell within the term buildings as used in section 5a
The provisions showed that where the proprietor had spent money on constructing something on an abadi site within the limits of the village sites that site had to be settled with him
Accordingly the word buildings has to be given its literal meaning as something which is built
Moir vs Williams  Morrison vs Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Samuel Small vs Parkway Auto Supplies  distinguished