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 section 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 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 128 
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 UP 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 section 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
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 section 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 iian ex proprietary tenant iiian occupancy tenant iva tenant holding on special terms in Avadh
v a rent free grantee via grantee at a favourable rate of rent
787 viia hereditary tenant viiia grove holder ixa sub tenant referred to in sub section 4 of section 47 of the UP 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 UP 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 UP 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 27 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 own benefits an agricultural area
Section 216 states that the words and expressions grove grove holder grove land and holdingshall have the meaning assigned to them in the UP 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 section 5
Section 8 provides that after agricultural areas have been demarcated under section 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 171 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 iiheld 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 ivheld as such by i an occupancy tenant ii a hereditary tenant iiia 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 19j 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 201 provides that a bhumidhar of the land referred to in cl
b of sub s1 of section 17 may within one year from the date of vesting apply to the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub Division for ejectment of asami belonging to the class mentioned in section 19j 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 section 10 as if the bhumidhar were an intermediary on the date of vesting
 If the bhumidhar fails to erect buildings within three years heshall 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 section 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 section 180 of the UP 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 26 of the UP 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 27 defines the word holding
It means a parcel or parcels of land held under one lease
Section 210 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 section 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 section 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 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 section 2 of the Act and was then being used by the respondents as a grove the land in dispute would be covered by section 2  1  c viii of the Act
In that event it will be out of the purview of section 21 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
The Act as a whole is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution
Shri Garg s contention however is that as section 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 section 21d 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 section 21 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 section 2 1
The proviso to section 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 section 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
I p37
So ordinarily agricultural area would mean an area used for cultivation or farming Section 21 includes groves also
Clause d should take its colour from this inherent meaning of agricultural area which is being defined in section 21
section 171 confers bhumidhari rights on certain classes of persons over certain kinds of lands
Section 171 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 section 2 1 d and section 17 1 b While section 21d refers to agricultural area section 171b is expressly limited to lands in agricultural area held on lease
for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon
 As the subject matter of section 21d and section 171b should be identical it appears to us that the expression agricultural area  in section 2 1 d should be construed as lands in agricultural area
If the defini 791 tion of land in the UP Tenancy Act is applied to section 17  1 as it should be section 171b 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 19j provides that a sub lessee from a person holding land under a lease referred to in cl
b of sub section 1 of section 17
shall be an asami
This provision also shows that the agricultural area referred to in section 21 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 section 2 1 d compasses a wider geography than section 171 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 section 24 compensation is payable only to an intermediary
But he is not an intermediary as defined in section 27 nor a sub intermediary as defined in section 214
lie is deemed to be an intermediary for a limited purpose under section 204 but that provision is not material for our purpose
This anomaly will not result if agricultural area in section 21 d and land in an agricultural  area in section 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 section 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 section 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 section 21 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 UP Allahabad and others1 the Allahabad High Court has pointed out this history of cl
The High Court has taken the view that section 21 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 section 2 1 d it cannot be said that this provision is not connected with agricultural reforms
It would accordingly receive the protection of article 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 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 AIR 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 section 26 of the UP 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 section 21 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 section 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 sections 3 4 5 and 8 of the Act
If it is found in the course of enquiry under sections 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 section 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 section 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 section 5 of the Act has held that the land in 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 section 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
GC Appeals allowed


Summary:
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 UP 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 section 8 of the Act vesting the land in the State was issued on July 16 1964
Rule 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas 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 article 32 of the Constitution praying that the notifica tion under section 8 of the Act dated July 16 1964 be quashed as violative of Articles 14 191f and 31 of the Constitution
It was further contended that section 21d 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 article 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 section 21cviii The lease could not therefore be held to fall exclusively under section 21d
790B 784 ii In Durga Prasad s case the Allahabad High Court has pointed out the history of cl
The High Court has taken the view that section 21d 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 section 21d it cannot be said that this provision is not connected with agricultural reforms
It could accordingly receive the protection of article 31A and would be immune from attack on the ground of violation of Articles 14 19 and 31
792C Durga Prasad vs Board of Revenue UP Allahabad and others AIR 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 section 26 of the UP 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 section 21 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 section 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