http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: INAYAT ALI KHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U. P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1971

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1407            1971 SCR  716

ACT: U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960  (U.P. Act  1  of 1961), s.  6(vii)-Exemption  from  ceiling-Horse- breeding  farm  whether exempt as  a  specialised  farm-Word ’and’ in clause whether can be read as equivalent to ’or’.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant was a horse-breeder.  On receipt of a  notice under  s.  10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling  on  Land Holdings  Act, 1960 he claimed exemption under s. 6(vii)  of the  Act on the ground that his farm was a specialised  farm within  the  meaning  of that  sub-clause.   The  prescribed authority  under the Act, the appellate court and  the  High Court in revision held against the appellant.  In appeal  by special leave, HELD:The  sub-clause  specially mentions two  types  of specialised farms, namely, those devoted to  poultry-farming and  dairying.   As  regards others it  leaves  them  to  be prescribed by rules under s. 44 of the Act.  In this context it is impossible to read the word ’and’ as ’or’.  Rule  4(4) prescribes  those  specialised  farms, but  farms  used  for horse-breeding are not included.  The appeal must  therefore fail. [718F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2018, 2019 and 2020 of 1968. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated March  25,  1968 and March 20, 1968 of  the  Allahabad  High Court in Criminal Revision No. 528, 576 and 518 of 1967. S.C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the appellants (in all the appeals). S.C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana, for respondent (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri,  C. J,-These appeals by special leave raise a  common question  as  to  the interpretation of  Section  6,  Clause (xvii)  of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land  Holdings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Act, 1960 (U.  P. Act 1 of 1961)-hereinafter referred to  as the  Act-and can conveniently be disposed of  together.   In Writ  Petition  261 of 1968 the vires of this  provision  is challenged.   This Writ Petition was heard  alongwith  these civil  appeals  and  will  be  disposed  of  by  a  separate judgment. In order to appreciate the point a few relevant facts in the case  of  Civil  Appeal No 2018 of 1968 may  be  given.   On receipt                             717 of  a notice under Section 10(2) of the Act  the  appellant, Inayat  Ali Khan, filed objections.  He is a  horse-breeder. One objection was that he has a specialised farm and certain plots  were  being  used for growing grass  or  for  growing special types of crops which were used as fodder for horses. He  relied  on Section 6 (xvii) of the Act, which  reads  as follows :               "6. Exemption of certain land from  imposition               of ceiling :               Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this               Act,  land  falling in any of  the  categories               mentioned  below,  shall  not  be  taken  into               consideration for the purposes of  determining               the  ceiling area applicable to, and the  sur-               plus land of, a tenure-holder-               (xvii)land,  other  than  land  used  for               purely  agricultural  purposes,  included   in               specialized  farm and exclusively  devoted  to               poultry  farming  or dairying  or  other  such               purposes, as may be prescribed:               Explanation.-Land  for  the purposes  of  this               clause shall include land, exclusively used by               the  tenure-holder for growing of  fodder  for               purposes of his dairy."               A rule was framed exempting certain farms, and               it reads as lows :               "4(4).    The  following  land,  included   in               specialised farms and exclusively devoted  for               purpose of sericulture, ericulture, lacculture               or pisciculture shall, to the extent mentioned               below, be exempt under clause (xviii) of  Sec-               tion 6 :               (i)land   under   actual   plantation    of               mulberry,  castor  and  lac-host  trees-Kusum,               Khair, Palse and ber-which constitute a grove,               (ii)land  on which buildings, necessary  for               the  rearing  of worms  or  insects  producing               silk, andi or lac, as the case may be, and for               preparation  of  raw silk, andi and  lac,  are               situate, and               (iii)land,  not less than one acre  in  area,               which  is  covered with water  throughout  the               year and has been used for pisciculture for  a               continuous   period  of  three   years,   duly               certified  as  such  by  an  officer  of   the               Fisheries Department, not below the rank of an               Inspector :               Provided  that the land to be  exempted  under               items  (i) and (ii) above is justifiable  with               reference to               718               the production of raw silk, andi or lac during               a, series of years. not exceeding three." The Prescribed Authority, Tahsil Sadar, held that the exemp- tion  claimed was not sustainable.  The Additional  District

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

Judge, on appeal, concurred.  He observed:               "The word ’and’ in clause (xvii) of section  6               makes it clear that for purposes of  exemption               it  is necessary that the land should be  used               for specialised farm and should be exclusively               devoted  to growing such articles or for  such               purposes as are specified in clause (xvii) and               in Rule 4. It cannot, therefore, be said  that               because this land is being used for growing  a               particular type of crop it will come under the               definition  of  specialised farming.   In  the               explanation, appended to clause (xvii), a case               of growing fodder has been referred to.   This               explanation  says  that  the  land  used   for               growing  fodder  purposes  of  dairy  will  be               exempted.   This explanation will,  therefore,               make  it clear that the land used for  growing               fodder for other purposes will not come  under               the definition of specialised farming". The appellant filed a revision before the High Court.  S. N. Singh, J., held that the lower appellate court had correctly interpreted the section. The appellant having  obtained special leave, the appeal is now before us for disposal. The  learned counsel for the appellant urged that  the  word ’and’ in sub-clause (xvii), should, in the context, be  read as  ’or’,  and  that all specialised  farms  used  for  non- agricultural purposes are entitled to exemption.  We see  no force in this contention.  The sub-clause specially mentions two  types  of specialised farms, namely, those  devoted  to poultry farming and dairying.  As regards others, it  leaves them to be prescribed by rules under Section 44 of the  Act. In  this context it is impossible to read the word ’and’  as ’or’. Rule 4(4) prescribes those specialised farms,  but farms used forhorse-breeding  are not included.   We  agree with the interpretation placed by the High Court. In  the  result Civil Appeal No. 2018 of  1968  fails.   The facts in the other two appeals are similar.  These must also fail.  There will be no order as to costs. G. C.                                  Appeals dismissed. 719