Case: K.N. Farms Industries (Pvt.) Ltd Vs. State Of Bihar

This appeal by special leave raises the question whether a tank will fall within the definition of "land" under section 2(f) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 as applicable in the State of Jharkhand (`Act for short), extracted belowmeans land which is used or capable of being used for agriculture of horticulture and includes land which is an orchard, kharhur or pasturage or forest land or even land perennially submerged under water or the homestead of a land-holder;Explanation I.- "Homestead" means a dwelling house for the purpose of living or for the purpose of letting out on rent together with any courtyard, compound, attached garden, orchard and out-building and includes any out-building for the purpose connected with agriculture or horticulture and any tank, library and place of worship appertaining to such dwelling house.Explanation II. - Land perennially submerged under water shall not include submerged in the bed of a river.The appellant is a land-holder. Proceedings were initiated in the year 1973 for determination of the surplus land held by it. The appellant filed a return showing the extent of land in its possession as 379.12 acres. The Circle Officer submitted a report to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur, showing the extent of land in the possession of appellant as 443.09 acres. The appellant filed the objections contending that certain tanks which did not fall under the definition of land in all measuring 43.29 acres had been wrongly included in the draft publication. By order dated 9.10.1982, the Addl. Collector held that the tanks covering an area of 43.29 acres fell within the definition of "land" and therefore, had to be taken into account for determining the surplus area. The challenge to the inclusion of the "tank" area was rejected by the appellate authority on 22.3.1983 and upheld by the Board of Revenue on 22.11.1983.3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition (WP No.995 of 1984), contending that while "even land perennially submerged under water" was `land for the purpose of the ceiling area, a tank cannot be considered to be land. The appellant contended that only land which was arable, that is land which was used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture could be considered as land for determining surplus land and a tank which is land covered with water incapable of being used for agriculture or horticulture could not be treated as land for the purpose of the Act. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court rejected the said contention and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 2.3.1993. He held that the legislative intent was to include all tanks and ponds used for agricultural purposes, within the definition of "land" by including in the definition "even land perennially submerged under water". The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by order dated 19.2.2004 affirming the reasoning and findings of the Learned Judge. The Division Bench also noticed the amendment to the Act in the State of Bihar by Act 5 of 2002 by which the words also the land were substituted for the words "even land" and held that the subsequent amendment showed the legislative intent was that land should also include any land perennially submerged under water. The said order is challenged in this appeal, giving rise to the question whether a tank will be land for purposes of the Act.

Court's reasoning:
6. At the outset, we should notice that we are not concerned with the validity of the Act or the validity of the definition of land in the Act. We are concerned only with the true meaning of the word land as defined in the Act. When a particular word is defined in an Act with reference to its ordinary and normal meaning, and then includes certain additional meaning which would not normally follow but for the specific inclusion, it is not possible to contend that that the extended meaning is contrary to the general or normal meaning and therefore it should be ignored. To put it differently, if a word is defined as A and B and includes C, D, E and F, the word includes is used in order to enlarge the meaning of the words A and B; and when it is so used, those words must be construed as comprehending not only what they signify according to their natural import (that is A and B) but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include (that is C, D, E & F). (See : generally the observations in Justice G.P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation11th (2008) Edition PageAt the outset we should clear certainFirst is the amendment to the Act in Bihar whereby the words "even land" has been substituted by the words "also the land" in the year 2002. The said amendment cannot be applied or extended to the State of Jharkhand as that State has not made such amendment. Secondly, it is not possible to treat the said amendment as mere clarification orent position. There are sufficient indications in the Act to show that the word even was not used to mean also. The Hindi version of the Act uses the words "Barhaon mahine jalmagan Samtal Bhoomi" for the English words "even land perennially submerged under water". The use of the word Samtal for even shows the word even was not intended to mean "also" , but to mean "level surface". Further, section 4(f) lists "even land perennially submerged under water" as one of the categories of land to be considered as class VI land along with hilly, sandy, forest land. Therefore, the words "even land perennially submerged under water" refer to "level land perennially submerged under water" as contrasted from river beds covered with water or ravines filled with water.9. The second is the role of the object of the Act while interpreting its provisions. It is true that one of the objects of the Act is to take over surplus land from largeand distribute such excess land among landless. But it does not follow therefrom that only land that could be distributed among landless for agricultural/horticultural purposes, can be considered as land and not other lands. The courts, while interpreting the provisions of any Act should, no doubt, adopt an object oriented approach keeping in mind the principle that legislative futility is to be avoided so long as interpretative possibility permits. But at the same time, the courts will have to keep in mind that the object oriented approach, cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain language used in the statute, bythe words of a statute in place of the actual words used, or by ignoring definite words used in the statue. (See : the observations of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Budhraja and Company – 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 208 and Justice G.P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation11th Edition, PageTherefore the decision in S. Naganatha Ayyar (supra) relied on by the appellant will be of no assistance.10. The third is the emphasis on the general meaning of the word tank and the consequential contention that no one would think of a tank as land. The argument is sea is not considered as land, river is not land and therefore tank also cannot be land. It is pointed out that if the determining factor is existence of land or level surface beneath the water to say tank is land, then even sea and rivers also will have to be treated as land. It is submitted that when land is perennially covered with water, such land cease to be land as ordinarily understood, and become water bodies which may be an ocean, sea, river, lake, tank or pond, depending upon the size, situation and nature of the water body. Reliance is placed on the decision of Arsed Ali (supra) where it was held that a pond abounding with fish was not land. But general meanings and perceptions, or decisions rendered with reference to statutes containing different definitions will not be of any assistance in interpreting a word which is clearly, specially and exhaustively defined in the Act itself. We will have to find out the meaning of the word, with reference to its definition in the Act. While the object of the Act can be one of the indicators used in interpretation, clear and specific words used cannot be ignored. In fact the learned Single Judge keeping in view the object of the Act, has held that only tanks used for agricultural purposes will be land for purposes of the Act and not all tanks in general. Let us now examine the provisions of the Act to find out whether a tank used for agricultural purposes is land, as held by the High Court, keeping the above principles in view.As noticed above, the definition of "land" includes homestead of theExplanation (I) to section 2(f) defines "homestead" as including any tank appurtenant to the dwelling house. If a tank appurtenant to the dwelling house is land, it follows that any tank appurtenant to agricultural/horticultural land used to irrigate or water such agricultural/horticultural land, will also be land. When tank is specifically referred to as land into the definition of the word land in section 2(f), it is not possible to accept the contention that no tank can be land.13. Explanation (II) to the definition of land states that "land perennially submerged under water" shall not include "submerged in the bed of a river" . This clearly implies that in the State of Bihar/Jharkhand, all land perennially submerged under water, except riverbeds, is land. The apparent legislative intention is that not only the land actually used for agriculture or horticulture but any or every land which is used incidental or appurtenant to agriculture or horticulture, is also land. This is evident from the definition of homestead. Any dwelling house which is situated in an agricultural or horticultural land, which is intended for the dwelling of persons is a homestead and is included in the definition of land. Further, any outbuilding used for the purposes connected with agriculture or horticulture is also part of homestead and therefore, land. Any artificial or natural body of water, situated in private holdings, which irrigates or supplies water for the agricultural or horticultural purposes is also land. The word even land with reference to the land submerged under water shows that what is excluded is riverbeds or ravines filled with water. The use of the words even land perennially submerged under water in the definition of land would thus indicate that a tank also is land. What is excluded from the definition of land is the riverbed, or a tank which is a dammed ravine. Section 4(f) of the Act which prescribes the ceiling area in regard to Class VI lands also reiterates that even land perennially submerged under water, is land.