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

PETITIONER: RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U P & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/10/1996

BENCH: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:      [with CA Nos.2356/84 & 1090/82]                          O R D E R      CA NOS.5311/83 & 1090/82;      In these two appeals, the appellant is common and so is the judgment  under appeal,  hence,  disposal  by  a  common judgment. Herein,  we are required to give an interpretation to clause  (f) of  sub-section (1)  of Section 6 of the U.P. Imposition of  Ceiling on  Land on  Holdings Act,  1960 [the Act] which reads as follows:      "6. Exemption  of certain land from      the  imposition   of  ceiling.  (1)      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 surplus land      of a tenure-holder, namely --      (a) to (e) x x x x x      (f) land held from before the first      day of  May, 1959,  by or  under  a      public,  religious   or  charitable      waqf,    trust,     endowment    or      institution the  income from  which      is wholly utilized for religious or      charitable purposes,  and not being      a waqf, trust or endowment of which      the beneficiaries  wholly or partly      are  settlers  or  members  of  his      family or his descendants;"      The original  appellant  tenure-holder,  now  dead  and represented  by  his  natural  grandson,  who  is  also  the Mutwalli, was  the Wakif  or creator  of a  Waqf Alal  Aulad created at  a period  prior to  the 1st  day  of  May,  1959 whereby he  had devised  income of the properties created by Waqf to  be spent  on the  welfare  of  his  defined  family members, branches  of which  he earmarked  as  also  towards other charitable  purposes such  as spread of education. The tenure-holder  claimed   exemption  under  the  above-quoted

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

provision on  the ground  that the case squarely fell within the earlier part of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 since it encompassed a charitable purpose of Public nature when providing  for  need  of  education  etc.  The  ceiling authorities below  answered this  question in a workable way of  a  sort  in  dividing  the  Wakf’s  income  in  a  ratio expendible on  charitable  and  family  purposes,  and  gave relief covering  charitable purposes.  This approach  of the authorities was demolished by the High Court in the two writ petitions preferred  by the  affected parties;  the ultimate decision being  that the Wakf fell within the purview of the latter part  of  the  aforequoted  provision  and  since  it involved land  income of  which was  partially meant for the settler and  the members  of his  family, the  tenure-holder could in  no event  claim exemption  under  the  aforequoted provision. The  aim here  is to apply the said provision, if possible, to  the Waqf  Alal Aulad which is partly meant for the benefit  of settler  and his family and partly for other religious and/or charitable purposes.      It is  plain from  the reading of the provision that it is not  meant to  apply solely  to Waqfs.  It is  not  meant exclusively  for   the  benefit   of  the  Muslim  community Patently, it  is a  provision which  applies to  all and  is meant to  cover  public,  religious  or  charitable  trusts, endowments or institutions inclusive of Waqf and no room has been made  towards importing  the specific  attributes of  a particular kind  of institution with a particular character. What is  clearly meant  is that  if the  holder has  in  his possession  an   institution  which   holds  land  and  that institution happens  to be  public, religious or charitable, in character,  it would get exemption from being part of the tenureholder’s holding,  but if  it  is  partially  of  that character, it  would not.  So, if  it  is  wholly  religious and/or charitable,  it gets exemption but if it is partially so, it  won‘t. We cannot agree to a Waqf Alal Aulad as known to Muslim  Law to  be entitled to any differential treatment than what  is due to institutions at large towards exemption of ceiling  of lands  in the  hands of  the holders. In this view of  the matter,  we find  no case made out in favour of the appellant in order to upset the orders of the High Court which has  gone on  to hold  that the  Waqf created  by  the original appellant  cannot  claim  exemption  under  Section 6(1)(f) of the Act. We hold accordingly.      Both the  appeals, thus, fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.      CA No.2356/84 :      The appellant,  now dead,  in the instant appeal is the same as  in the  afore two  appeals i.e.  CA Nos.5311/83 and 1090/82. Here,  Section 19  of the  Urban Land  (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,  1976 [the  Ceiling Act]  has been  pressed into service laying claim that the lands held by the Waqf do not attract  the provisions  of the  Ceiling Act. Section 19 thereof, so far relevant, reads as follows :      "19.  Chapter   not  to   apply  to      certain lands-      (1) Subject  to the  provisions  of      sub-section (2),  nothing  in  this      chapter shall  apply to  any vacant      land held by --      X X X X X      (iv)  Any   public  charitable   or      religious  trust  (including  waqf)      and  required   and  used  for  any      public  charitable   or   religious      purposes.

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

    Provided that  the exemption  under      this clause  shall  apply  only  so      long as  such land  continues to be      required and  used for such purpose      by such trust."      The High  Court when  interpreting  the  provision  has taken the view that the vacant land held by such trust if it is required and used for any public, charitable or religious purpose is  exempt from  the purview  of the Ceiling Act but the proviso  very clearly  adds a  rider that such exemption shall apply  only so  long as  such  land  continues  to  be required and  used for  such  purpose  by  such  Trust.  The emphasise  is  that  vacant  land  which  is  sought  to  be retrieved from  the provisions  of the  Ceiling Act, must be "required and  used" for any public, charitable or religious purposes. It  would, thus  be obligatory on the Trust or the Waqf, as  the case  may be  to plead and establish that such vacant land  has been  kept "required  and used" for such of the purposes  as mentioned  therein and  claim for exemption cannot be  laid merely  on the footing that such vacant land is precious or likely to fetch some income, if put to proper use it  the same  time, it  is to be understood that if such land is  otherwise income-giving,  other than  agricultural, then it is out of the scope of sub-clause (iv) of Section 19 as such purpose cannot be termed as a public, charitable and/or religious purpose. Instantly, no need of such kind of any  particular  plot  of  land  has  been  pleaded  by  the appellant in  order to  establish that  it was  put and  was expected to  be put  to use  for any  public,  religious  or charitable purpose devised by the wakf. Since the matter now stands remitted  by the  High Court  to the  first appellate authority, it  is up  to that  authority  to  determine  all questions left  to it.  We do  not  intend  to  comment  any further.      For the foregoing reasons, this appeal too fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.