http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: GOPINDER SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: FOREST DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  433            1990 SCR  (3) 797  1990 SCC  Supl.  272     JT 1990 (3)   561  1990 SCALE  (2)334

ACT:     Himachal   Pradesh   Nautor  Land  Rules,   1968:   Rule 7(a)--Grant  of nautor land to a resident having  income  of more than Rs.2,000 per annum--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     Clause (a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules,  1968 makes every resident of the estate having  less than  ten  bighas of land or having an income of  less  than Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including lands,  eligi- ble for grant of land in nautor.     The  grant of nautor land to the  appellant-teacher  was set  aside  by the Financial Commissioner in  revision.  The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine.     In the appeal by special leave it was contended for  the appellant that the word ’or’ occurring in-between the  first and the second part of cl. (a) of Rule 7 has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be read as ’and’ that the two parts  of  the clause were, therefore, independent  of  each other  and had to be read disjunctively, and that  he  being eligible under the first part, even though having an  income of  more  than Rs.2,000 per annum as a teacher,  the  second part of cl. (a) was not attracted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,     HELD:  1.  A person who has got less than 10  bighas  of land but has an income of more than Rs.2,000 per annum  from all  sources  including the said land is  not  eligible  for allotment  of  nautor land under cl. (a) of Rule  7  of  the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. [800G]     2. The object of granting nautor land under the Rules is to  help  poor and unprovided for residents  of  the  State. Considering the nature, scope and the clear intention of the framers  of the Rules it is necessary to read the word  ’or’ in-between  the first and the second part of clause  (a)  as ’and’. The two parts cannot, therefore, be read disjunctive- ly.  The second part makes it clear that an income  of  less than Rs.2,000 per annum should be from all sources including lands. [800H; 801A] 798     3. The appellant’s income in the instant case being more than Rs.2,000 per annum he was not entitled to the grant  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

nautor land. [801A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006  of 1981.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  28.7.1981  of  the Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 94 of 1981. M.V. 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  Rs.552.50  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 Rs.650 p.m. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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 Rs.2,000 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  Rs.2,000 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 2,000 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 Rs.2,000  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 Rs.2,000  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 Rs.20,000 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 Rs.2,000 per annum and as such  his claim for nautor land was rightly rejected.     We, therefore, do not agree with the contentions  raised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

by  the  learned counsel for the appellant. The  appeal  is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                         Appeal   dis- missed. 802