Case: Kanpur Sugar Works Ltd Vs. State Of Bihar &amp; Ors

1. Kanpur Sugar Works Ltd. a public limited Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing sugar in village Marhowrah, District Saran, in the State of Bihar. Prior to 1956 it possessed a considerable zamindari property. Under a notification issued in exercise of the power under the Bihar land Reforms Act 30 of 1950 the entire zamindari vested in the State with effect from January 1, 1956. But by the provisions of the Act homestead lands and lands of the factory remained in the occupation of the Company. The Circle Officer commenced a rent assessment proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act for determining the rent payable by the Company. The Company claimed to classify lands in its occupation under three heads : (i) 12 bighas 9 kathas 7 dhurs on which the factory buildings stood, and on that account assessable to rent under S. 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950; (ii) 50 bighas 3 kathas 13 dhurs of cultivable land under Khas cultivation of the Company liable to assessment of rent under S. 6 of the Act; and (iii) 71 bighas 2 kathas 12 dhurs as homestead land not liable to assessment under sub-s. (1) of S. 5 of the Act.      2. By order dated February 10, 1961 the Circle Officer fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 187-8-0 per acre in respect of 80 bighas 16 kathas 15 1/2 dhurs of land under S. 7 of the Act. The circle Officer rejected the contention of the Company that 71 bighas 2 kathas 12 dhurs of land on which there stood residential bungalows, quarters, garage, kitchens, clubs, dispensary, rest-house, outhouses, office buildings, tube-well and water tank, godown, cattle-shed, weighbridge house etc. was homestead and was on that account exempt from liability to pay rent. Appeal against that order was dismissed by the Collector of Saran by his order dated August 6, 1962.      3. The Company then moved a petition in the High Court of Patna for a writ quashing the order of the Circle Officer and the Collector fixing the rent under S. 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, in respect of the land claimed to be homestead. The High Court rejected the petition. In the view of the High Court the expression "factory" could not mean merely the place where the machinery is installed and the process for the manufacture of sugar or distillation of liquor is carried on, but the whole area of land including the courtyard necessary for carrying on various operations. The High Court recorded the conclusion as follows:" ... the buildings and structures used for the aforesaid ancillary purposes of the factory must also be held to form part of the factory and the land on which they stand must include not only the actual site on which the structures are erected but also the adjacent land necessary for the convenient use of the said structures and buildings. The whole of the land covered by the outer enclosure would, therefore, be, on a reasonable interpretation of S. 7 (1) of the Act, included within the words "buildings or structures" used as factories for the purpose of the said sub-section, even though that area may include some vacant land as well."The High Court further observed that the proviso to S. 5 (1) of the Act had no application, because (1) of the staff quarters cannot be clearly demarcated from the other structures and buildings located within the outer enclosure used for the purpose of the factory, such as rest-house, outhouses, office-buildings, tube-well, water tanks, godowns, cattle-shed, weighbridge etc; and (2) though the occupants of the staff quarters pay rent to the factory, nevertheless it cannot be said that those quarters are used "for the purpose of letting out on rent". The High Court then proceeded to state that"the mere fact that some rent is incidentally collected from the occupants will not detract from the main purpose for which the quarters are used, namely, to facilitate the proper working of the factory. The occupation by a member of the staff of the factory of those quarters is that of a servant of the factory and not that of an ordinary tenant. It was not alleged, nor is there a finding to the effect, that he can continue to occupy the quarters if he ceases to be a member of the staff of the factory or else that he can sub-let the house to some other person like an ordinary tenant. The relationship between the occupant of these quarters and the factory continues to be that of a master and servant and not that of an ordinary landlord and tenant."Against the order dismissing the writ petition, this appeal has been filed with certificate granted by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
It is clear from a bare perusal of sub-section (1) of S. 7 that the buildings which are primarily used as offices or cutcheries referred to in cl. (a) of S. 4 as were in the possession of an intermediary at the commencement of the Act are excluded from the terms of S. 7 (1). Again, Sub-s. (1) only applies to such buildings or structures together with the lands on which they stand which are used as golas, factories or mills for the purpose of trade, manufacture or commerce or used for storing grains or keeping cattle or implements for the purpose of agriculture. The expression employed by the Legislature is "used as golas, factories or mills" and not "used for golas, factories or mills". The expression "lands on which they stand" may include the land which is necessary for the efficient user of the building for the purpose for which it is intended to be used.We are unable however to hold that because a factory has, for the benefit of the workmen and managerial staff working in the factory, constructed buildings used as bungalows, quarters for employees, clubs, kitchens, garage, clubs, dispensary, rest-house, outhouses etc., but which are not directly used as factory or mill buildings, the buildings would be deemed to fall within S. 7 (1) as buildings in the possession of an intermediary and used as golas, factories or mills. In our judgment, these lands are homestead and are claimable by an intermediary under S. 5 (1): if they are used for the purpose of letting out they would be liable to pay fair and equitable ground-rent under the proviso to sub-s. (1) of section 56. The High Court was, we think, in error in relying upon the definition of "factory" used inthe Factories Act, 1948. The scheme and subject of the Factories Act are different. The Act is intended to regulate labour in factories, to protect workmen from being subjected to unduly long working hours, for making provisions for healthy and sanitary conditions of service, and for protecting the workmen from industrial hazards.The definition of "factory" in the Factories Act cannot be a guide, much less a useful guide, in determining the meaning of the expression "factory" as used in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The liability to pay rent under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the footing that the land remained in the possession of the intermediary on which buildings or structures used as golas, factories or mills, for the purpose of trade, manufacture or commerce must be determined on the terms used in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and not by incorporating words used in another statute of which the scheme and object are different7. The revenue authorities erred in holding that the entire area of 83 bighas odd was liable to be assessed to rent under S. 7 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Undoubtedly an area of 12 bighas 9 kathas 7 dhurs is liable to be assessed to rent under Section 7(1) of the Act. If there are other lands which strictly fall within the expression" buildings or structures together with the lands" used as golas, factories or mills for the purpose of trade, manufacture or commerce, it will be open to the Collector to assess those lands to rent under S. 7(1), but the lands not covered by buildings and structures used for golas, factories or mills, will be governed by S. 5(1) of the Act8. We are, on the materials on the record, unable to specify the buildings and lands falling within S. 7 of the Act for the purpose of determination of assessment of rent. The evidence on the record before us is not clear as to what structures or buildings stand on the lands in the outer enclosure and the purpose for which they are used. We are also not clear as to the precise meaning of the expression "golas" used in S. 7 - the expression not being defined in the Act4. In our view, the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. It appears that there are two enclosures which comprise the total area of 83 bighas odd in respect of which the dispute arises. One is the inner enclosure in which are situate the buildings of the factory in which sugar is manufactured and the process of distillation of liquor is carried on. The outer enclosure consists of an area of 71 bighas 2 kathas and 12 dhurs. In the statement of land in the Khas possession of the company all these lands are described as used for residential quarters, cutcheri, dispensary,, bungalows, outhouses, kitchen quarters, latrines, garage, club, control office, watertank, "bakery house", cane office quarters, godowns,, weighbridge house,l etc." The dispute raised by the Company is that the land on which these buildings stand is homestead, and is governed by S. 5 of the Act.