ivil Appeal No 3006 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated 2871981 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No 94 of 1981
MV Goswami for the Appellant
Nemo for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
Nautor land under Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules 1968 hereinafter called Rules  means the right to utilize with the sanction of the competent authority waste land owned by the Government outside the towns outside the reserved and demarcated protected forests and outside such other areas as may be notified from time to time by the State Government
Gopinder Singh applied for the grant of nautor land measuring 14 bighas 12 biswas situated in village Kanal for cultivation
The Revenue Assistant Chopal vide his order dated June 29 1972 sanctioned nautor land measuring 11 bighas 1 biswas situated in village Kanal to him on payment of Rs55250 as Nazarana
The Forest Department filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner Simla which was accepted and the order of the Revenue As sistant Chopal sanctioning nautor land in favour of Gopinder Singh was set aside
Gopinder Singh filed further appeal to Divisional Com missioner Himachal Pradesh at Simla who accepted the same and vide his order dated September 9 1974 restored the grant of nautor land to Gopinder Singh
The Forest Depart ment filed revision petition before the Financial Commis sioner Revenue Appeals Himachal Pradesh who accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated September 9 1974 of the Divisional Commissioner sanctioning nautor land to Gopinder Singh
He further ordered that the amount of Nazarana Should
be refunded to Gopinder Singh and the land resumed to the State
The Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal on the following two grounds 799 1 Gopinder Singh felled the trees on the land without waiting for necessary approval of the Divisional Forest Officer and as such he took the law in his own hands
2 Being a teacher in a Government school drawing month ly emoluments of more than Rs650 pm his economic condi tion was reasonably good and as such he was not eligible for the grant of nautor land under the Rules
Against the order of the Financial Commissioner Gopinder Singh filed Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla which was dismissed in limine on July 28 1981
This appeal by special leave is by appellant Gopinder Singh against the orders of the Financial Commissioner and of the High Court
Rule 7 of the Rules lays down the categories of persons eligible for the grant of nautor land
The said rule is as under Eligibility for nautor land
Save for the widow and the children of a member of an armed force or semi armed force who has laid down his life for the country whose widow and children will be eligible for grant anywhere within the Tehsil subject to the conditions mentioned in the Wajib ul arj in respect of the areas where the land applied for is situated no one who is not the resident in the estate in which the land applied for is situate shall be eligible for the grant
Every resident of the estate in which the land applied for lies will be eligible in the following order of preference a Such persons who have less than ten bighas of land whether as owners or as tenants or as lessees either individually or collectively or have an income of less than Rs2000 per annum from all sources including lands
Provid ed that in this category a dependent of one who has laid down his life for the defence of the country shall get preference over his counterparts b Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applicants c The dependants of those who have laid down their lives for the defence of the country
Service for the defence of 800 the country will mean service in a uniformed force as well as in the capacity of civilian so long as the death occurs on a front be it military or civil d Serving personnel in the armed forces and Ex servicemen e Panchayats and f others Provided that a bona fide landless resident of Spite shall be eligible for the grant of land in Nautor within the spiti Sub Division
 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on first part of clause a of Rule 7 to show that the appellant was having less than 10 bighas of land and as such as was eligible for the grant of nautor land
He fur ther contended that even though he may be having an income of more than Rs2000 per annum as a teacher he being eligible under the first part the second part of clause a of Rule 7 is not attracted in his case
According to him first and the second part of clause a of Rule 7 are inde pendent to each other and there being or  in between the two parts these have to be read disjunctively
He contends that or  has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be read as and 
We have carefully examined the provisions of clause a of Rule 7 reproduced above
The clause reads such persons who have less than 10 bighas of land  or have an income of less than 2000 per annum from all sources including lands
 There is thus inherent evidence in the clause itself to show that the two parts cannot be read disjunctively
The second part makes it clear that an income of less than Rs2000 per annum should be from all sources including lands
It is thus obvious that a person who has got less than 10 bighas of land but has an income of more than Rs2000 from the said land is not eligible for allotment of nautor land under clause a
Even otherwise if we inter pret the clause the way learned counsel for the appellant wants us to do it would produce absurd result
A person have two bighas of land but otherwise earning Rs20000 per annum would be eligible for allotment of nautor land if we accept the appellant s interpretation
The object of granting nautor land under the rules is to help poor and unprovided for residents of Himachal Pradesh
Considering the nature scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is 801 necessary to read the word or in between the first and the second part of clause a as and
The appellant s income was admittedly more than Rs2000 per annum and as such his claim for nautor land was rightly rejected
We therefore do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs
PSS Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The Petitioner representing a Social Organisation has written a letter alleging environment pollution in some villages and the adjoining Sarnath Temple
The letter was treated as Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitu tion of India
It was alleged that the smoke and dust emit ted from the Chimneys of Respondent No 3 viz an oil Mill and a refinery plant in the area and the effluents dis charged by the plants has been causing serious environmental pollution in the thickly populated area leading to epidemic diseases
It was further alleged that even the flora was badly affected by pollution
Petitioner prayed for direc tions to check the pollution
On behalf of Respondent No 3 it was contended that it had complied with the provisions of Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1981 and the and there was no com plaint whatsoever
It was further stated that the petitioner was an anti social element and his only aim was to blackmail and extract money from people like Respondent No 3 and that a criminal case has already been filed against him for such activities
Dismissing the writ petition HELD 1
Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens
Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Anything which 740 endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in viola tion or in derogation of laws that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse of Article 32 of the Constitution
But this can only be done by any person interested genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or community
This weapon as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circumspection and caution
Where it appears that this is only a cloak to feed fat ancient grudge and enemity this should not only be refused but strongly discouraged
While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court
That would be an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of preservation of fundamental rights
743B E Bandhu Mukti Morchay
Union of lndia  Ors   referred to
This petition is legally devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public protection
There was no fundamental right violation or could be violative if the allegations of the so called champions on behalf of the society are scrutinised
743G 22
Prima facie the provisions of the relevant Act namely the Air Pollution Control Act have been complied with and there is no conduct which is attributable to re spondent No 3 herein leading to pollution of air or ecolog ical imbalances calling for interference by this Court
The orders passed by the Pollution Control Board also indicate that there were no instances of any violation
There was no complaint from anybody apart from the petitioner or any authority as to the non compliance of any statute by Re spondent No 3
743A B 742G