ivil Appeal No 3241 of 1979 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 2471979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 11370 of 1975
MV Goswami and Dr BS Chauhan for the Appellant
Prithvi Raj RS Rana and Ashok K Srivastava for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN J
In these appeals by special leave the appellants assail the interpretation given to certain provi sions of Section 4A of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 as amended by UP Acts 18 of 1973 and 20 of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act by the Allahabad High Court
Conflicting interpretations had been given by single judges on the relevant provisions and hence a reference was made in Kallu vs State of UP  Ors 1979 ALI 1113 to which connected writ petitions were tagged on to a Division Bench for an authoritative pro nouncement on two questions viz 569 1
What is the true scope and effect of sub clause b of clause firstly  of Section 4 A 2
In particular whether the said sub clause would take in the entire plot only if two crops were grown in every inch of the land covered by it The Division Bench in its reported judgment Kallu vs State of UP has discussed the matter and answered the two questions as under Clause firstly  of Section 4 A requires the Prescribed Authority to form an opinion as to whether during the material Fasli years irrigation facilities were available from such sources as are enumerated therein in respect of any crop
The relevant consideration is merely the existence of irrigation facilities and not its actual utilisation
This is under standably so because if facilities are avail able and yet a tenure holder neglects to make use of them there is no justifiable reasons why he should have an advantage over those who have been up and doing while he has chosen to be idle and asleep
We have already held that land  and plot  cannot be equated
If irri gation facilities of the nature mentioned in sub clause a of clause firstly  of Section 4 A are available only to a part of the total area of which a plot is comprised it cannot be held that irrigation facilities were available for the entire plot
In such cases the Pre scribed Authority on a correct interpretation of subclause a of clause firstly  will have to treat only that area of a tenure holder s plot as irrigated land  to which irrigation facilities were available
We are consequently of the opinion that if a large plot consist partly of an area to which irrigation facili ties are available as also some to which irrigation facilities are not available only that area thereof will be covered by sub clause a of clause firstly  to which irri gation facilities were in fact available
Of course usar land  as defined in the Act and determined in the manner provided by the Rules will have to be excluded even though irriga tion facilities may have been available to it
Similarly other varieties of land exempted under Section 6 will have to be excluded from consideration
As far as sub clause b of clause firstly  is concerned the 570 requirement is that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years  emphasis supplied The expression such land it is obvious means land referred to in sub clause b is in  and not over  and consequently if the crops were grown in any portion of the area of a plot to which irriga tion facility was available under sub clause a of clause firstly  the entire area to which irrigation facility was available shall have to be treated as land in which two crops were grown
The requirement of sub clause b of clause firstly  of Section 4 A is not that every inch of the land to which irrigation facilities were available in the material years should have grown double crops
To take a hypothetical example if to a plot of land consisting of 50 acres irrigation facilities were available to an area of 20 acres and on any portion of such 20 acres at least two crops were grown in any of the years 1378 Fasli to 1380 Fasli the entire area of 20 acres to which irrigation facilities were available will have to be treated as irrigated land for the purpose of sub clause b of clause firstly  of Section 4A
The word in  is one of common use
If it is said that an individual lives in a particular building or locality it does not convey that he is in occupation of the entire building or locality
Similarly when it is said that one has grown threes in a piece of land or raised crops therein it does not signify that he has grown trees or raised crops over the entire land
When the legislature by amending the Act made availability of irrigation facilities the basis for determination of the ceiling area and surplus land instead of the quality of the land it must have had some purpose in mind
During the last decade farm technology and agricultural science have made rapid progress and human ingenuity coupled with labour and application of scientific know how has suc cessfully converted even deserts into green belts provided water was available
Applica tion of scientific methods has made possible improvement in soil quality and its fertility
It is not unreasonable to infer that when the Act was amended the legislature intended that if any land has irrigation facilities avail able to it and is not usar land  and in some part of it dofash  crops have in fact been raised in any of the relevant fasli  years a willing and hard working tenure holder by application of modern agricultural appliance and fertilisers can improve the productivity of the land and consequently no premium should 571 be available to those who fail to do so
In this view of the matter to take a concrete case to compute the area of a tenure holder s irrigated land  under clause firstly  of Section 4A Prescribed Authority must find out the area of land to which irrigation facili ties of the prescribed nature were available for any crop during the relevant Fasli years exclude therefrom usar land  etc and if it finds that over any part of such area at least two crops were grown it must hold the entire area of irrigated land 
Such an interpreta tion resolves the problem which the Prescribed Authority would be faced with in determination of the irrigated land  of a tenure holder where records reveal the growing of the crops on varying areas of his holding during the material Fasli Years For the reasons given our answer to question No 1 passed by the learned single judge is as follows If in any portion of an area of plot or plots to which during the Fasli Years 1378 to 1380 irrigation facilities were available and over any portion of such area double crop had in fact been sown the entire area of the plot to which irrigation facilities were available will be covered by clause firstly  of Section 4 A since both the condition laid in subclause a and b will be complied with
 Our answer to question No 2 is in the nega tive
In as far as a contrary view has been taken with regard to the scope of sub clauses a and b of clause firstly  of Section 4 A of the Act in Gasi Ram vs State of UP supra and similar opinion expressed in Surrinjpal Singh vs State of UP and Sitaram Tyagi vs State of UP Writ No 8115 of 1975 decided on 22nd September 1978 1978 AWC SCC 114 page 90 have not been correctly decided
 Thereafter the writ petitions were placed before single judges for decision on merits and the petitions came to be dismissed
In Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 11370 of 1975 it was held that plot Nos
595 and 224 belonging to the peti tioner had been rightly treated as irrigated land in their entirety for purposes of computation under the Act
Against that judgment Civil Appeal No 3241 of 79 has been 572 filed
In the other appeal which arises from the dismissal of Civil Misc
Writ Petition No Nil of 84 leave has been granted confined only to Plot No 466
The writ petition was dismissed following the ratio in Kallu vs State of UP supra
Though the appeals are directed against the dis missal of the two writ petitions the real challenge in the appeals is to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Kallu vs State of UP supra
The appellants dispute the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench and would contend that in order to classify a land as irrigated land there should be evidence of assured irrigation and secondly the two crops in a fasli should have been raised on the entire extent of the land and not in a portion of the land alone
The interpretation of the terms of Section 4 A of the Act assume importance because ceiling area  and surplus land  under the Act have to be computed on the basis of the irrigated land  held by a tenure holder
Originally the ceiling area  under the Act was to be determined on the basis of fair quality land 
However by amendments intro duced by UP Act 18 of 1973 and UP Act 20 of 1976 cei ling area  and surplus land  are to be determined with reference to the assured irrigation facilities available to land held by a tenure holder
We may now have a look at the relevant portions of Section 4 A of the Act
They read as under 4 A Determination of irrigated land
The prescribed authority shall examine the relevant khasras for the yeas 1378 Fasli 1379 Fasli and 1380 Fasli the latest village map and such other records as it may consider necessary and may also make local inspection where it considers necessary and thereupon if the prescribed authority is of opinion firstly a that irrigation facility was available for any land in respect of any crop in any one of the aforesaid years by i any canal included in Schedule No 1 of irrigation rates notified in Notification No 1579WXXIII 62 W 1946 dated March 31 1953 as amended from time to time or 573 ii any lift irrigation canal or iii any State tube well or a private irriga tion work and b that at least two crops were grown in such land in any one of the aforesaid years or secondly that irrigation facility became available to any land by a State Irrigation work coming into operation subsequent to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Amendment Act 1972 and at least two crops were grown in such land in any agricultural year between the date of such work coming into operation and the date of issue of notice under Section 10 or thirdly a that any land is situated within the effective command area of a lift irriga tion canal or a State tube well or a private irrigation work and b that the class and composition of its soil is such that it is capable of growing at least two crops in an agricultural year then the Prescribed Authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purpose of this Act
EXPLANATION I Omitted EXPLANATION II
Omitted EXPLANATION III
Omitted On a reading of Section 4 A it may be seen that the Legislature has prescribed different kinds of tests on the basis of which the authorities have to determine whether a land is irrigated land or not for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of a tenure holder
The two broad tests are 1 availability of irrigation facilities and 2 the factum of raising or the capability of the soil for raising atleast two crops in an agricultural year
We may now examine the merits of the appellant s conten tions
The statute has been enacted to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh and certain other matters connected therewith
 The preamble to the Act reads as under 574 Whereas it is necessary in the interest of the community to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers and for other public purposes as best to subserve the common good
And whereas a more equitable distribution of land is essential
And therefore it is expedient to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the aforementioned purposes
 The Act is thus a piece of social legislation for achieving the several objectives set out in the preamble
In order to give greater thrust to the objects underlying the Act the Legislature has changed the basis for reckoning the ceiling area from that of fair quality land  to that of assured irrigation facilities available to a land
Coming now to the specific provisions of Section 4 A dealt with by the High Court it may be seen that in order to form an opinion whether irrigation facility was avail able for any land from one of the sources mentioned in sub clauses i ii and iii in respect of any crop in anyone of the aforesaid years viz Faslis 1378 to 15380 the Prescribed Authority is enjoined to examine the Khasras for those three Fasli years the village map other relevant records considered necessary and also to make a local in spection whenever it is necessary
Hence there is no scope for contending that a Prescribed Authority may form his opinion without reference to relevant material in an arbi trary or capricious manner to the detriment of a tenure holder as regards the availability of assured irrigation facility to a land from one of the enumerated sources
Consequently there is no merit in the first contention of the appellant that in addition to the materials and records set out in the sub clause there must be independent evi dence of assured irrigation facility before ever a Pre scribed Authority can form an opinion about a land having assured irrigation facility
As regards the second contention relating to sub clause b the clause refers only to the growing of atleast two crops in a land found to be having assured irrigation facil ity in any one of the relevant years
The sub clause does not contemplate the raising of two crops on the entire extent of the land
The classification has to be made with reference to the potentiality of the land to yield two crops in one Fasli year and not on the basis of the actual raising of two crops on the entire 575 extent of the land
Therefore sub clause b cannot be read so as to mean that two crops should have been grown on the entire extent of a land having irrigation facility for classifying the land as irrigated land  as it would have the effect of limiting the operation of the sub clause contrary to the legislative intent
The High Court has taken the view that when the Legislature made amendments to the Act it must have had in mind the advancement that has been made in agricultural science and farm technology and by reason of it a tenure holder can overcome hurdles and raise two crops in a year over the entire extent of a land having irrigation facility
We need not go as far as that
The normal presumption in the absence of contra material would be that the quality and content of soil of a land would be uniform throughout its extent
Such being the case if a tenure holder is able to raise two crops in a year in a portion of the land then it would be logical to hold that the other portions of the land also would have the capacity to yield two crops if the tenure holder had utilised the entire extent to raise two crops instead of utilising a portion of the land alone
The raising of two crops even on a portion of the land will prove in the absence of material to show poor quality of soil in portions of the land due to salinity etc
 the uniform nature and content of the soil of the entire land
The High Court was therefore right in holding that the Prescribed Authority can treat a land having assured irrigation facility as irrigated land  if the tenure holder had raised two crops even m a portion of the land during anyone of the prescribed years and that it is not necessary that the raising of the two crops should have been made on the entire extent of the land in order to classify the land as irrigated land 
As the learned single judges have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the lands in question satisfy the tests laid down by the Division Bench in Kallu vs State of UP supra we do not find any merit in these appeals
Consequently both the appeals are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs
RSS Appeals dis missed


Summary:
Four large industrial units owned by the respondent company were closed down with effect from September 9 1984 resulting in denial of employment to about 10000 employees
In the writ petition the workmen sought immediate payment of salary and wages for the period since closure and compen sation as per the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act in 1984 and payment of dues under the provident fund ac count gratuity etc
The High Court had in the meantime on May 22 1986 appointed a provisional liquidator under the Companies Act
This Court on October 29 1987 had directed the Central Government to make a reference to the Board constituted in terms of s4 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act 1985 which had come into force to frame a scheme as contemplated under section 10 thereof for revival of the company and submit it for consideration of the Court within four months time
On September 7 1988 the Court took note of the fact that the State of Bihar was inclined for nationalisation of the company and directed a committee with the Industries Secre tary to the Union of India as its Chairman to be immediately constituted to work out the modalities of nationalisation
On December 13 1988 the Court considered the report of the committee indicating that three units excepting paper and boards unit were viable and could be revived and adjourned the matter to give an opportunity to the parties to explore the possibilities of revival of the viable units
Till August 8 1989 no substantial progress had been made
There after the State of Bihar and the Union of India filed their statements separately and the memorandum prepared by the Attorney General was also made available to the Court
In this background the Court HELD 1
Living to about 10000 families has been denied for over five years and apart from national loss the work men have been 616 put to serious jeopardy
There is a huge amount of wages outstanding to them
Several financial institutions have large dues to recover from the company
The Trustees of the Debenture Trust Deeds have also sought to intervene to maintain their claim
Apart from these the owners of the company have also pleaded that they are entitled to compen sation in the event of the properties of the company being taken away by way of nationalisation
A lot of assets are fast becoming useless and will soon become junk
If the company gets liquidated the liabilities would turn out to be far in excess of the assets and notwithstanding first or second charge on the assets the creditors may not apprecia bly benefit
It is therefore of paramount importance that the company in respect of viable units should be revived and allowed to come into production
620D A C 21 The State of Bihar is directed to appoint an autho rised officer to be the Rehabilitation Administrator
620H 22 The Provisional Liquidator appointed by the High Court shall hand over to the Administrator all the assets of the company which he had taken over under orders of that Court
The assets of the company not yet taken over shall vest forthwith in the Administrator
621A 23 The assets of the company encumbered with financial and other institutions shall not be available to be proceed ed against for a period of one year and there shall be a moratorium for a period of one year in regard to proceedings taken and pending or to be taken against the company hereaf ter and limitation shall remain suspended for the period
621D E 24 The State Government of Bihar shall deposit within eight weeks an amount of Rs 15 crores with the Administra tor against the cost of assets to be taken over
A similar sum of Rs 15 crores shall be advanced by the Union of India to the State from out of plan assistance
The sum paid by the State shall be utilised in due course for payment of arrears of wages of the workers and for disbursement of secured loans of financial institutions and other parties for which security of the company s assets had been fur nished
The Administrator shall open an account with the lead nationalised bank for the State operating at Dalmiana gar into which the two sums of money shall be credited
621F H 25 The Administrator shah set up a Committee with a retired 617 High Court Judge a retired District Judge and an Accounts Officer to examine the claims of the owners of the company and other parties including financial institutions within six months and to report the matter to the Court for direc tions
622A 26 An inventory of all the articles shall be made within four weeks
Steps shall be taken to form a new compa ny within four weeks
Appointment of technical consultants and other competent officers shall be undertaken within two months
The retrenched employees shall come back to work in phases
Steps shall be taken to explore the viability of the paper unit within three months after the company is recom missioned in respect of the three units
Liberty is given to the parties to apply in the event of necessity
622C D  E 27 The case shall remain pending to be called again on March 1 1990
622H