http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAND KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/11/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar               Hon’ble Mrs. Justice D.P.Wadhwa G.K.Mathur, Sr.Adv.,  Arvind Kr.Shukla, Ashok K.Shrivastava, Advs. with him for the appellant Arun Sikri  Sr.Adv., Mrs.Madhu  Sikri, V.K.Rao.  Advs., with him for the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: D.P. Wadhwa, J.      This appeal  is against  the judgment  of the Allahabad High Court  allowing the  writ petition  filed  by  the  1st respondent holding  that the  agricultural land comprised in village  Para   falling  within   the  boundary  of  Lucknow Mahapalika was  exempt  under  the  Urban  Land  (Ceiling  & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’)      Issue involved in this appeal is very narrow, After the enforcement of  the Act  of February 17, 1976 1st respondent filed return  under Section  6(1)  of  the  Act  before  the Competent  Authority   constituted  under   the  Act.  First respondent gave  details of  the  properties  and  one  such property was land measuring 16 Bighas 1 Biswa 7 Biswansis in village Para.  The Competent  Authority  after  examing  the return sent a. draft statement to the 1st respondent showing the land  in village  Para as agricultural land. However, he proposed this  land to  be surplus  land after  applying the parameters fixed  under the  Act. In  this appeal we are not concerned with other properties of the 1st respondent.      Against  the  order  of  the  Competent  Authority  1st respondent  filed  an  appeal  before  the  District  Judge, Lucknow under  Section 33  of  the  Act  who  dismissed  the appeal. Feeling  aggrieved the  1st  respondent  filed  writ petition in  the High  Court. By  the impugned  judgment the High Court  held that  the agricultural land in village Para could not be declared as surplus land and could not be taken into  account  while  determining  the  ceiling  limit.  The decisions of  the Competent Authority and the District Court were set  aside and the matter was remanded back by the High Court to  the Competent Authority for determining of surplus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

land, if  any, in the light of the observations and findings recorded in the judgment.      The question  that arises for consideration is: was the land  in  village  Para  which  is  subject  matter  of  the proceeding used  mainly   for agricultural  purposes at  the relevant time,  being the data when the Act came into force? To answer  this question  we may  have to  refer to  various definitions as contained in Section 2 of the Act relating to master plan  (clause h),  urban  agglomeration  (clause  n), urban land  (clause o),  urbanisable  land  (clause  p)  and vacant land  (clause q).  But before that we may refer to an affidavit dated  August 13, 1976 filed by the 1st respondent before the Secretary, Local Self Government, Lucknow for the purpose of  seeking exclusion  of the  land in  village Para from the  "ceiling operations".  In this  affidavit the  1st respondent stated  that he was doing brick kiln business and had his  "Bhatta"  at  village  Para,  tehsil  and  district Lucknow and  that the  brick kiln was covering an area of 16 Bighas 1  Biswa 7  Biswansis out  of which  brick  kiln  was actually operating  in about  7 to  8 Bighas with brick kiln structure in  2 Bighas  and  8  Bighas  of  land  was  still available for  earth digging  for the purpose of brick kiln. 1st respondent  further said  in  this  affidavit  that  the business of  brick kiln  had been  carried out in his family from the time of his father and was one of the chief sources of his livelihood. He said under the Act the area covered by the brick  kiln business  was not  specifically excluded but the Government  had power  to exempt  the same.  He  further explained that  brick kiln business could not be done unless substantial are  for digging  the earth ad for drying of the manufactured ‘Kachcha’  bricks was  available and  area  was also  required  for  huts  of  the  brick-layers  for  their residences.  Area   was  also   needed  for   stacking   the manufactured bricks. 1st respondent, showed that the land in question was  being used  mainly for  the purposes  of brick kiln business.  Master plan  of Lucknow  prepared under  the Utter Pradesh  Urban  Planning  and  Development  Act,  1973 inclusive of  the village  Para  has  been  brought  to  the record. It  show that the land in question is falling within the limits of Luckow Nagar Mahapalika.      Coming back  to the definitions as contained in Section 2 of the Act, which are as under:      "(h) "master  plan", in relation to      an    area    within    an    urban      agglomeration or  any part thereof,      means the  plan (by  whatever  name      called) prepared  under any law for      the  time  being  in  force  or  in      pursuance of  an order  made by the      State    Government     for     the      development of  such area  or  part      thereof  and   providing  for   the      stages by  which  such  development      shall be carried out;      (n) "urban agglomeration",-      (A) in  relation to  any  State  or      Union territory  specified in  Col.      (1) of Sch. 1, means,-      (i)   the    urban    agglomeration      specified  in   the   corresponding      entry  in   Col.  (2)  thereof  and      includes   the    peripheral   area      specified  in   the   corresponding      entry in Col. (3) thereof; and      (ii) any other area which the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    Government may,  with the  previous      approval of the Central Government,      having  regard   to  its  location,      population (population  being  more      than  one   lakh)  and  such  other      relevant     factors     as     the      circumstances  of   the  case   may      require,  by  notification  in  the      official Gazette,  notification  in      the official  Gazette, declared  to      be an  urban agglomeration  and any      agglomeration so  declared shall be      deemed to  belong to  category D in      that Schedule  and  the  peripheral      area   therefor    shall   be   one      kilometre;      (B) in  relation to any other State      or Union  territory, means any area      which  the  State  Government  may,      which the  previous approval of the      Central Government,  having  regard      to   its    location,    population      (population  being  more  than  one      lakh)  and   such  other   relevant      factors as the circumstances of the      case may  require, by  notification      in  urban   agglomeration  and  any      agglomeration so  declared shall be      deemed to  belong to  category D in      Sch. 1 and peripheral area therefor      shall be one kilometre;      (o) "urban land" means,-      (i) any  land situated  within  the      limits of  an  urban  agglomeration      and referred  to  as  such  in  the      master plan; or      (ii) in  a case  where there  is no      master plan,  or where  the  master      plan does  not refer to any land as      urban land,  any  land  within  the      limits of  an  urban  agglomeration      and situated  in any  area included      within  the   local  limits   of  a      municipality  (by   whatever   name      called), a notified area committee,      a town  area committee,  a city and      town  committee,   a   small   town      committee, a  canotment board  or a      panchayat,      but does  not include any such land      which  is   mainly  used   for  the      purpose of agriculture.      Explanation, -  For the  purpose of      this clause and C1. (o).      (A)     "Agriculture"      includes      horticulture,    but    does    not      include,-      (i)   raising of grass,      (ii)  dairy farming,      (iii) poultry farming,      (iv)  breeding of live-stock and      (v)     such  cultivation,  or  the      growing of  such plant,  as may  be      prescribed;      (B) land  shall not be deemed to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    used  mainly  for  the  purpose  of      agricultural, if  such land  is not      entered  in  the  venture  or  land      records before  the appointed  days      as for the purpose of agriculture:      Provide  that  where  on  any  land      which is  entered in the revenue or      land records  before the  appointed      day   as   for   the   purpose   of      agriculture, there  is  a  building      which is  not in  the nature  of  a      farm-house then,  so  much  of  the      extent of  such land as is occupied      by the building shall not be deemed      to be  used mainly  for the purpose      of agriculture:      Provided  further   that   if   any      question   arises    whether    any      building is  in  the  nature  of  a      farm-house, such  question shall be      referred to  the  State  Government      and   decisions    of   the   State      Government thereon shall be final;      (C)    notwithstanding     anything      contained  in   Cl.  (B)   of  this      explanation,  land   shall  not  be      deemed to  be mainly  used for  the      purpose of  agriculture if the land      has been  specified in  the  master      plan  for   a  purpose  other  than      agriculture;      (p) "urbanisable  land" means  land      situated    within     an     urban      agglomeration, but  not being urban      land;      (q) "vacant  land" means  land, not      being  land  mainly  used  for  the      purpose of agriculture, in an urban      agglomeration,   but    does    not      include, -      (i) land on which construction of a      building is  not permissible  under      the building  regulations in  force      in  the   area  in  which  land  is      situated;      (ii) in  an area  where  there  are      building   regulations   the   land      occupied by  any building which has      been  constructed   before,  or  is      being constructed on, the appointed      day  with   the  approval   of  the      appropriate authority  and the land      appurtenant to such building; and      (iii) in  an area  where there  are      not building  regulations, the land      occupied by  any building which has      been  constructed   before,  or  is      being constructed on, the appointed      day and the land appurtnant to such      building:      Provided  that   where  any  person      ordinarily keeps  his cattle  other      than  for   the  purpose  of  dairy      farming  or   for  the  purpose  of      breeding of live-stock, on any land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    situated in  a  village  within  an      urban agglomeration (described as a      village in  the  revenue  records),      then, so much extent of the land as      has been  ordinarily used  for  the      keeping of  such cattle immediately      before the  appointed day shall not      be deemed to be vacant land for the      purpose of this clause."      In the  master plan  the area  in question  is no doubt shown as  agriculture. If we refer to the Schedule mentioned in the  definition of  urban agglomeration  it could be seen that area in question falls within urban agglomeration as it is situated  within the  peripheral area  of  the  Municipal Corporation of  Lucknow (Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika). the land is question will not be urban land if though situated within the limits  of an urban agglomeration, it is mainly used for the purpose  of agriculture.  Operating of  a Bhatta  cannot certainly be  an agriculture  purpose, Mr.  Rohtagi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that Explanation to clause (o)  shows as what is not included in agriculture and since Bhatta is not one of the entries therein it would mean that operating Bhatta would be an agriculture purpose. We do not find any substance in the submission. It is correct that the land in question is entered in the revenue record but at the same  time is  entered shows that the land is being used for Bhatta.  The  foremost  question  is:  if  the  land  in question though  agriculture was  being mainly  used for the purpose of agriculture was being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture  on the appointed day? Seeing the definitions as set  out above  and the  affidavit of  the 1st respondent that the  land in  question is not being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Agriculture under the explanation to clause (o) has limited meaning. It includes horticulture but does not  include cultivation of every type of vegetation or rearing of  animals or  birds. That  apart to  hold land  is mainly used  for the purpose of agriculture it is not enough even if  the land  is entered  in the revenue records before the appointed  day used  for the  purpose of  agriculture or even if so entered the master plan gives purpose of the land other than  agriculture. In  the present case though (B) and (C) to  the explanation  are satisfied but (A) is not as the purpose to which the land, though agriculture and so entered in the revenue records, was being used for running of brick- Kiln. High Court was not, therefore, correct in holding that the  land   was  being   mainly  used  for  the  purpose  of agriculture merely  on the strength of the purpose in master plan which  is specified  as agriculture  (Krishi Bhumi) and that the  land is entered in the revenue records. High Court has wrongly applied Explanation B to clause (o) of Section 2 of the  Act. Simply  because land  is entered in the revenue record would  not mean  that it is being used mainly for the purpose of  agriculture. Here  the land  is mainly  for  the purpose of  brick kiln business of the 1st respondent. It is not material  if a  small portion of the land was being used for the purpose of agriculture as well.      Accordingly,  the   appeal  is  allowed,  the  impugned judgment of  the High  Court is  set aside  and that  of the Competent Authority  and the  District Judge restored to the extent that  the land in village Para is not exempt from the provisions of  the Act and could be taken into account while determining the  ceiling limit  under the Act. There will be no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6