Civil Appeal Nos
1866 68 of l988
PG NO 861 From the Judgment and Order dated 2571986 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP Nos 149 l5l and 172 of 1976
RC Misra BB Singh for the Appellant
RK Jain RK Khanna and RP Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
These appeals have been filed by the UP Bhooden Yagna Samiti Kanpur against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad delivered in Misc
Writ Petition No 14976 15176 and 17276
By the impugned order the High Court quashed the Order passed By Additional Collector Kanpur dated 1176 quashing the Pattas granted in favour of the respondent
In the month of April and May 1968 the Petitioner before the High Court ie present respondent obtained grant under Sec
l4 of the UP Bhoodan Yagna Act in respect of various plots of land situated in Village Jahangirabad Paragana Ghatampur District Kanpur from Bhoodan Yagna Samiti on 1751972
Tehsildar Ghatampur submitted a report to Collector
kanpur and on the basis thereof the Additional Collector Kanpur issued notices to these respondents under Sections of the UP Bhoodan Yagna Act requiring them to how as to why the settlement obtained by them be not cancelled On following grounds i As the petitioners did not reside in the village where the plots were situated they had obtained the grant fraudulently and by misrepresenting facts
ii As the petitioners did not fall in the category of land less persons it was not proper to make the grant in their favour
iii The grants had not been approved by the Government of UP After considering the objections filed by the respondents
the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the Order of the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti settling the land could not be justified as it could only be made in favour of poor landless agricultural labourers and not in favour of persons like the respondents who were quite well off and who reside in the city of Kanpur owned propery there and carried on business
In his opinion such persons did not PG NO 862 fall in the category of landless persons as contemplated under the Act and the grants made in their favour in the year 1968 were irregular and liable to be set aside and on the basis of these reasons the Additional Collector by his order dated 1176 quashed all the grants made in favour of the three respondents against which the writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Allahabad and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the order passed by the Additional Collector and maintained the grants in favour of the respondents and against this order of the High Court by grant of leave the present appeals are before us
Before the High Court two questions were raised
First was about the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector as under the Act the duties were cast on the Collector to enquire into these matters and therefore on that ground it was contended before the High Court that Additional Collector has no jurisdiction
The other ground which was raised before the High Court was that the view taken by the Additional Collector is not in accordance with law
So far as the first ground is concerned even the High Court held against the respondents and before us learned counsel for parties conceded that to that part of the High Court Judgment there is no challenge and this now is not in dispute that the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and therefore on that ground it is not necessary for us to dilate any more
We are therefore mainly concerned with as to whether the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in favour of the respondent was in accordance with law or which was not in accordance with law and therefore Additional Collector was right in setting aside those allotments
As regards the second question the facts in this case are not in dispute
The respondents are businessmen residing in Kanpur
It is not in dispute that they have their trade in Kanpur and have properties also and are income tax payers
It is also not in dispute that they are not agriculturists and they had at the time of allotment nothing to do with agriculture
Apart from it their source of livelihood was not agriculture at all but trade and business
It is also not in dispute that they did not fall into any of the categories of persons depending on agriculture who did not have land in their name
On this ground it was contended before the Additional Collector that in fact the allotment was obtained by the respondents PG NO 863 by misrepresenting that they are landless persons and on the basis of this the allotments were made which could not be justified
Before the High Court it was contended that Sec
14 of the UP Bhoodan Yagna Act which provides for allotment of land only talks of landless persons
14 as it stood in the year 1968 enabled the Samiti to settle the land vested in it with landless persons
Section neither specifies that such landless persons should also be agricultural labourers nor it provided that they have to be residents of a place in which the concerned lands were located
It was also not provided that the persons must be such whose source of livelihood is agriculture
The High Court on the basis of its earlier decision felt that Section 14 as it stood in 1968 did not provide any one of these qualifying clauses and therefore the respondents who admittedly had no land in that village and the district they were covered by the definition of landless persons in spite of the fact that they may be traders and paying income tax may have properties in the City of Kanpur still the learned Judges of the High Court felt that they fell within the ambit of the definition of landless persons as it stood in 1968 and therefore settlement made in their favour was justified
High Court relied on Sec
14 as it stood in 1968
It reads Grant of land to landless persons The Committee or such other authority or person as the Committee may with the approval of the State Government specify either generally or in respect of any area may in the manner prescribed grant lands which have vested in it to the landless persons and the grantee of the land shall i where the land is situate in any estate which has vested in the State Government under and in accordance with Section 4 of the UP Zamindari Land Abolition and Reforms Act 1950 enquire in such land the rights and the liabilities of a sirdar and ii where it is situate in any other area acquire therein such rights and liabilities and subject to such conditions restrictions and limitations as may be prescribed and the same shall have effect any law to the contrary notwith standing
It is not disputed that these allotments were made in accordance with Sec
14 but had not been approved by the Government and it was even before that the Additional PG NO 864 Collector took notice of the complaint and issued notice to the respondents and on the basis of his enquiry he cancelled the allotments made in their favour by the Order in 1976 which has been quashed by the High Court
It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bhoodan Yagna Samiti that although Sec
14 quoted above does not clearly indicate what the law meant by landless persons but in view of the scheme of Bhooden Yagna the movement which Acharya Vinoba Bhave and later Jaya Prakash Narain carried out and the purpose of the movement clearly indicated that when in Sec
14 allotment was contemplated in favour of landless persons it only meant those landless persons whose main source of livelihood was agriculture and who were agriculturists residing in the village where the land is situated and who has no land in their name at that time
It never meant that all those rich persons who are residing in the cities and have properties in their possession but who are technically landless persons as they did not have any agricultural land in their name in the tehsil or the village where the land was situated or acquired by the Bhoodan Samiti that it could be allotted in their favour
This was not the purpose or the philosophy of Bhoodan Yagna and therefore it was contended that such a view which has been taken by the learned Judges of the High Court is contrary to law and the interpretation put by the High Court on the language of Sec 14 could not be justified
It was contended that landless person has to be interpreted in the background of the law which was enacted and the movement and the philosophy behind the movement which was the basis of the enactment of this law and it is only in that background that these words landless persons could be properly interpreted
It was also contended that if there was any doubt left
15 makes the things still clearer
15 reads Grants to be made in accordance with Bhoodan Yagna Scheme All grants shall be made as far as may be in accordance with scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna
15 provides that all grants shall be made so far as may be in accordance with the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna and it could not be disputed that Bhoodan Yagna scheme only contemplated allotment of lands in favour of those landless agricultural labourers who were residing in the villages concerned and whose source of livlihood was agriculture and who were landless and in that context only the landless person could be understood as contemplated PG NO 865 under Sec
It appears that in 1975 by an amendment in place of landless persons in Sec
14 landless agricultural labourers was substituted and the objects and reasons when this Amendment Bill was moved clearly go to show that it was because of such errors committed that it became necessary to make this amendment
The Objects and Reasons of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Amendment Act 1975 reads Prefatory Note Statement of Objects and Reasons The Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act 1952 provides for distribution of Bhoodan land to the landless persons by the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Samiti
It has come to the notice of Government that in certain cases persons other than land less persons have also received by fraud the land donated under the said Act
It has also come to the notice of Government that in many cases for various reasons the land vested in the Committee is not actually distributed
It has therefore been considered necessary to empower the Collector to cancel the grants received by misrepresentation or fraud and further where the committee does not grant the land within a period of three years to authorise him to distribute the land according to the provisions of the Act
By this Amendment Act in Sec
14 in place of landless person landless agricultural labourers was substituted and this clearly shows that it became necessary only because such errors were committed in under standing the meaning of words landless persons 
The rule of interpretation which had been generally accepted in later part of 19th century and the first half of 20th century was that the word should be given its plain ordinary dictionary meaning and it is clear that learned Judges of the High Court in the impugned judgment interpreted the words landless persons on that basis and in so doing they followed their earlier judgment
But if the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna which has to be looked into because of Sec
l5 has been looked into or the purpose of the movement of Bhoodan Yagna which was started by late Acharya Vinoba Bhave and followed by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain was understood this interpretation would not have been possible
In India we have yet another problem
The movement and the problems which are debated at all levels is not in the language in which ultimately the law to meet those PG NO 866 situations was enacted
The Bhoodan Yagna movement used generally a term Bhoomihin Kissan and it is this term which gained momentum and virtually was understood to mean those agricultural labourers whose main source of livlihood is agriculture but Who have no lands of their own or who have no lands agricultural recorded in their names in the revenue record and it is this problem of Bhoomihin Kissan that this movement went on to to settle and this Act was enacted to remedy that problem but our draftsman while drafting the law borrowed the phrase landless person in place of Bhoomihin Kissan and this unfortunately led to the present interpretation put by the High Court in the impugned judgment as the High Court followed the rule of interpretation which in my opinion has become obsolete
At the time when Acharya Vinoba Bhave started his movement of Bhoodan Yagna our rural society had a peculiar diversity
There were some who owned or had leasehold rights in vast tracks of agricultural lands whereas on the other hand there were those who were working on agriculture as labourers in the fields and depending on what little they got from their masters
Sometimes they were even bound down to their masters and therefore had to lead miserable life
It was this problem in rural India which attracted the attention of Acharya Vinoba Bhave followed by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain and they secured large donations of land from big land holders and the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna movement was to distribute this land to those Bhoomihin Kissan who were living on agriculture but had no land of their own and it was to make this effective and statutory that this law was enacted and in this context it is clear that if one had noticed even the slogan of the Acharya Vinoba Bhave s movement or its basis and the purpose it would have clearly indicated the problem which was to be remedied by this enactment and if this was looked into for the purpose of interpretation of the term landless persons no Court could have come to the conclusion which has been arrived at in the impugned judgment
In this country we have a heritage of rich literature it is interesting to note that literature of interpretation also is very well known
The principles of interpretation have been enunciated in various Shlokas which have been known for hundreds of years
One such Shlok Verse which describes these principles with great precision is UPKRAMOP SANHARO ABHYASO UPPURWATA PG NO 867 FALAM ARTHWADOPPATTI CH LINGAM TATPARYA NIRNAYE This in short means that when you have to draw the conclusion from a writing you have to read it from beginning till end
As without doing it it is difficult to understand the purpose if there is any repetition or emphasis its meaning must be understood
If there is any curiosity or a curious problem tackled it should be noticed and the result thereof must be understood
If there is any new innovation Uppurwatta or something new it should be taken note of
Then one must notice the result of such innovation
Then it is necessary to find what the author intends to convey and in what context
This principle of interpretation was not enunciated only for interpretation of law but it was enunciated for interpretating any piece of literature and it meant that when you have to give meaning to anything in writing then you must understand the real meaning
You can only understand the real meaning by understanding the reference context the circumstances in which it was stated and the problems or the situations which were intended to be met by what was said and it is only when you take into consideration all this background circumstances and the problems which have to be tackled that you could really understand the real meaning of the words
This exactly is the principle which deserves to be considered
When we are dealing with the phrase landless persons these words are from English language and therefore I am reminded of what Lord Denning said about it
Lord Denning in The Discipline of Law at Page No 12 observed as under Whenever a statute comes up for consideration it must be remembered that it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise and even if it were it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity
The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision
Our literature would be much the poorer if it were
This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticized
A Judge believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity
It would certainly save the judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were PG NO 868 drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity
In the absence of it when a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsmen
He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament
And it is clear that when one has to look to the intention of the Legislature one has to look to the circumstances under which the law was enacted
The Preamble of the law the mischief which was intended to be remedied by the enactment of the statute and in this context Lord Denning in the same book at Page No 10 observed as under At one time the Judges used to limit themselves to the bare reading of the Statute itself to go simply by the words giving them their grammatical meaning and that was all
That view was prevalent in the l9th century and still has some supporters today
But it is wrong in principle
The Statute as it appears to those who have to obey it and to those who have to advise them what to do about it in short to lawyers like yourselves
Now the eccentrics cut off from all that is happening around them
The Statute comes to them as men of affairs who have their own feeling for the meaning of the words and know the reason why the Act was passed just as if it had been fully set out in a preamble
So it has been held very rightly that you can enquire into the mischief which gave rise to the Statute to see what was the evil which it was sought to remedy
 It is now well settled that in order to interpret a law one must under stand the background and the purpose for which the law was enacted
And in this context as indicated earlier if one has bothered to under stand the common phrase used in the Bhoodan Movement as Bhoomihin Kissan which has been translated into English to mean landless persons there would have been no difficulty but apart from it even as contended by learned counsel that it was clearly indicated by Sec 15 that the allotments could only be made in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna
In order to understand the scheme of Bhoodan and the movement of Shri Vinoba Bhave it would be worthwhile to quote from Vinoba And His Mission by Suresh Ram printed with an introduction by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain and foreword by Dr section RadhaKrishnan
In this work statement of annual Sarvodya Conference at Sevapuri has been quoted as under PG NO 869 The fundamental principle of the Bhoodan Yagna movement is that all children of the soil have an equal right over the Mother Earth in the same way as those born of a mother have over her
It is therefore essential that the entire land of the country should be equitably redistributed anew providing roughly at least five acres of dry land or one acre of wet land to every family
The Sarvodaya Samaj by appealing to the good sense of the people should prepare their minds for this equitable distribution and acquire within the next two years at least 25 lakhs of acres of land from about five lakhs of our villages on the rough basis of five acres per village
This land will be distributed to those landless labourers who are versed in agriculture want to take to it and have no other means of subsistence  Underlining for emphasis by us This would clearly indicate the purpose of the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna and it is clear that Sec 15 provided that all allotments in accordance with Sec
14 could only be done under the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna
In the light of the discussion above therefore the judgment of the High Court could not be maintained
The appeals are therefore allowed
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the orders passed by the Additional Collector are restored
Appellant shall be entiled to costs of the appeals counsel fee Rs l500 in each of these three appeals
GN Appeals allowed


Summary:
In October 1971 the appellant company entered into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board respondent No 1 for supply of electricity
The quantity of electricity to be supplied varied from time to time
To meet the situation arising out of insufficient generation of electricity the State of Madhya Pradesh issued two orders
By the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply and Consumption Regulation Order 1975 the consumers were asked to reduce their consumption failing which they would have to pay charges at penal rates for excess consumption without prejudice to the Board s power to disconnect the supply
By the Generation Order the consumers who had alternative sources of captive power were required to generate electricity to the maximum extent technically feasible from their own sources of electricity
After the assessment of their generating capacity the appellant was directed to generate additional electricity of 2500 KW Sub Clause iii of Proviso to clause 3 of the Generation Order provided that if in certain contingencies there was reduction in the generation of electricity by the PG NO 979 consumer the Board would try to make good the deficit against the appropriate charge for it
Under this provision the appellant on pleading emergency was supplied additional energy from time to time
For excess consumption drawn without the Board s prior approval the appellant was sent bills at penal rate
The appellant company challenged the demand before the High Court by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed by the High Court except for granting some minor reliefs
Before this Court it was contended by the appellant l There is no sanction in Law for charging at the Penal rate for the electricity consumed beyond what is permissible under the Generation Order
2 That the assessment of their generating capacity was not made by the authority empowered to do so
ie the Divisional Engineer and 3 that the assessment was based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations Dismissing the appeal it was HELD 1 A perusal of the documents on record including admissions on the part of the appellant company
furnishes unimpeachable evidence proving that the assessment of the maximum feasible capacity of the appellant s capative power sets was duly made in accordance with the Generation Order and that the Divisional Engineer who had been authorised by the Generation Order to assess the appellant s generating capacity reached the conclusion after personally considering the matter thoroughly
2 In pursuance of the assessment of the generating capacity the required direction was issued which was acted upon by the parties for a number of years
The Company not only took steps to generate the additional energy as was required of it it also took advantage of the provisions of proviso iii to clause 3 of the Generation Order and benefited by it from time to time
988A B 3 The appellant company was fully conscious of the fact that it was consuming electricity beyond its entitlement under the two Orders
For several years the Company was particular to obtain the permission of the Board PG NO 980 for drawing electricity in excess of what it was entitled to by the agreement as modified by the Regulation Order and the Generation Order but later it not only stopped seeking the advance sanction in this regard it did not even care to inform the Board of the excess drawal
1001B CF G 4 Section 22B of the permits the State Government to issue an appropriate order for regulating the supply distribution and consumption of electricity
1010B 5 The expression regulate occurs in other statutes also as for example the  and it has been found difficult to give the word a precise definition
It has different shades of meaning and must take its colour from the context in which it is used having regard to the purpose and object of the relevant provisions and as has been repeatedly observed the Court while interpreting the expression must necessarily keep in view the object to be achieved and the mischief sought to be remedied
1010C D 6 There does not appear to be any doubt that either under section 491 of the 1948 Act read with the agreement or under section 493 or under both the provisions the respondent Board was fully authorised to levy and to make a demand at a higher rate than the usual tariff1014E F 7 The necessity for issuing the two orders arose out of the scarcity of electricity available to the Board for supplying to its customers
The situation did not leave any option to the Board but to make limited supply of electricity to its consumers
and it must be held to have in the circumstances
the right to stagger or curtail the supply
The orders were issued in this background and to make the direction mentioned therein effective it was considered essential to impose sanctions which could take any reasonable from either disconnection in case of gross violation or the lesser sanction of enhanced tariff
Hence none of the two Orders was illegal or unreasonable
Adoni Cotton Mills vs AP State Electricity Board   State of UP v Hindustan Aluminium Corporation  and New Central Jute Mills v UP State Electricity Board 1986 Supp
SCC581