http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: U.P.BHOODAN YAGNA SAMITI,U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BRAJ KISHORE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/09/1988

BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 2239            1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 859  1988 SCC  (4) 274        JT 1988 (3)   640  1988 SCALE  (2)571

ACT:     U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952: Sections I4 and 15--Grant of  land to landless persons--To be made in accordance  with the  Bhoodan  Yagna  Scheme and the  philosophy  behind  the Bhoodan Movement.

HEADNOTE:     The  Respondents, in 1968, obtained grant from  Bhoodan Yagna Samiti under section 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, of various plots of land situated in a village in Kanpur. On the  basis of a report submitted by the Tehsildar  concerned in  1972,  the Additional Collector issued  notices  to  the respondents  under the Act, requiring them to show cause  as to  why  the  settlement  obtained by  them  should  not  be cancelled  on the grounds, that they did not reside  in  the village where the plots are situated, that they did not fall under  the category of landless persons and that the  grants had  not been approved by the Government. After  considering the  objections  filed by the  respondents,  the  Additional Collector  quashed  all  the grants made in  favour  of  the respondents.     Against  the  order of the  Additional  Collector,  the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court  held  that  the  respondents  were  covered  by   the definition  landless  persons as they had no  land  in  that village  and  the district, though they may be  traders  and paying  income-tax  and may have properties in the  city  of Kanpur,  and  quashed  the order passed  by  the  Additional Collector  and  maintained  the  grants  in  favour  of  the respondents. These appeals are against the said order of the High Court.     On  behalf of the appellant, it was contended that  the expression  landless  person has to be  interpreted  in  the background of the law and the philosophy behind the movement which  was the basis of the enactment of the  law. Allowing these appeals.     HELD:   1.1  It is now well settled that  in  order  to interpret  a law one must understand the background and  the purpose  for which the law was enacted. If one has  bothered                                                    PG NO 859                                                    PG NO 860

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

to understand the common phrase used in the Bhoodan Movement as  Bhoomihin Kissan which has been translated into  English to   mean  landless  persons  there  would  have   been   no difficulty. [868F-G]     1.2  At the time when Acharya Vinoba Bhave started  his movement  of Bhoodan Yagna our rural society had a  peculiar diversity. There were some who owned or had leasehold rights in  vast tracks of agricultural lands. And there were  those who were working as labourers in the fields and depending on what little they got from their masters. Sometimes they were even bound down to their masters and therefore had to lead a miserable  life.  It was this problem in rural  India  which attracted the attention of Acharya Vinoba Bhave followed  by Shri Jaya Prakash Narain and they secured large donations of land  from  big land-holders and the scheme of  the  Bhoodan Yagna  movement  was  to  distribute  this  land  to   those Bhoomihin  Kissan who were living on agriculture but had  no land  of  their  own.  It was to  make  this  effective  and statutory  that this law was enacted and in this context  it is  clear  that if one had noticed even the  slogan  of  the Acharya  Vinoba  Bhave  s  movement or  its  basis  and  the purpose,  it would have clearly indicated the problem  which was to be remedied by this enactment and if this was  looked into for the purpose of interpretation of the term  landless persons no Court could have come to the conclusion which has been arrived at in the instant case. [866C-F] 2. Section 15 provides that all grants shall be made so  far as  may  be  in accordance with the scheme  of  the  Bhoodan Yagna.  It could not be disputed that  Bhoodan Yagna  scheme only  contemplated  allotment of lands in  favour  of  those landless  agricultural  labourers who were residing  in  the villages  concerned  and  whose  source  of  livelihood  was agriculture.  In that context only, the expression  landless person  could be understood as  contemplated  under  section 14.  section 14 was amended in 1975 to substitute the  words landless  agricultural  labourers  in  place  of   ‘landless persons.’    The  objects  and  reasons  contained  in   the Amendment  Bill  clearly go to show that it was  because  of such errors committed that it became necessary  to make this amendment. [864G-H; 865A-B]     Lord  dennings’s  ‘The Discipline of law’, pp.  10.  12 and‘Vinoba and His Mission’by Suresh Ram, referred to.

JUDGMENT:       CIVIl APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1866- 68 of l988.                                                    PG NO 861     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  25.7.1986  of  the Allahabad  High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 149, l5l  and 172  of 1976.     R.C. Misra, B.B. Singh for the Appellant.     R.K. Jain, R.K. Khanna and R.P. Singh for the Respondents.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     OZA,  J.  These  appeals have been filed  by  the  U.P. Bhooden  Yagna Samiti,  Kanpur against the judgment  of  the High Court of Allahabad delivered in Misc. Writ Petition No. 149/76,  151/76 and 172/76. By the impugned order  the  High Court  quashed  the Order passed  By  Additional  Collector, Kanpur dated 1.1.76 quashing the Pattas granted in favour of the respondent.     In  the  month of April and May,  1968  the  Petitioner before the High Court i.e. present respondent obtained grant under  Sec. l4 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act in  respect  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

various  plots  of  land situated  in  Village  Jahangirabad Paragana  Ghatampur,  District  Kanpur  from  Bhoodan  Yagna Samiti on 17.5.1972. Tehsildar Ghatampur submitted a  report to   Collector.   kanpur  and  on  the  basis  thereof   the Additional   Collector,  Kanpur  issued  notices  to   these respondents  under  Sections of the U.P. Bhoodan  Yagna  Act requiring  them to how as to why the settlement obtained  by them be not cancelled On following grounds:     (i)  As the petitioners did not reside in  the  village where  the plots were situated they had obtained  the  grant fraudulently and by misrepresenting facts.     (ii) As the petitioners did not fall in the category of land-less  persons  it was not proper to make the  grant  in their favour.     (iii)   The  grants  had  not  been  approved  by   the Government of U.P."     After   considering   the  objections  filed   by   the respondents. the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the Order of the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti settling the land could   not be justified  as it could only be made in favour of poor landless agricultural labourers and not in favour of persons like the respondents who were quite well off and who reside  in  the  city of Kanpur,  owned  propery  there  and carried  on  business. In his opinion such persons  did  not                                                    PG NO 862 fall  in  the category of landless persons  as  contemplated under  the  Act and the grants made in their favour  in  the year  1968 were irregular and liable to be set aside and  on the  basis of these reasons the Additional Collector by  his order dated 1.1.76 quashed all the grants made in favour  of the three respondents against which the writ petitions  were filed before the High Court of Allahabad and by the impugned judgment,  the Division Bench of the High Court quashed  the order passed by the Additional Collector and maintained  the grants  in favour of the respondents and against this  order of the High Court by grant of leave the present appeals  are before us.     Before the High Court two questions were raised.  First was  about the jurisdiction of the Additional  Collector  as under  the  Act  the duties were cast on  the  Collector  to enquire  into these matters and therefore on that ground  it was   contended  before  the  High  Court  that   Additional Collector  has no jurisdiction. The other ground  which  was raised before the High Court was that the view taken by  the Additional  Collector is not in accordance with law. So  far as  the first ground is concerned, even the High Court  held against  the respondents and before us learned  counsel  for parties  conceded  that  to  that part  of  the  High  Court Judgment  there  is  no challenge and this  now  is  not  in dispute  that the Additional Collector has  jurisdiction  to enquire  into the matter and therefore on that ground it  is not necessary for us to dilate any more.     We  are therefore mainly concerned with as  to  whether the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in favour of the  respondent was in accordance with law or which was  not in  accordance with law and therefore  Additional  Collector was right in setting aside those allotments.     As regards the second question, the facts in this  case are not in dispute. The respondents are businessmen residing in  Kanpur. It is not in dispute that they have their  trade in   Kanpur  and  have properties also and  are  income  tax payers.  It  is  also  not in  dispute  that  they  are  not agriculturists and they had at the time of allotment nothing to  do  with  agriculture. Apart from  it  their  source  of livelihood  was  not  agriculture  at  all  but  trade   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

business.  It is also not in dispute that they did not  fall into   any  of  the  categories  of  persons  depending   on agriculture  who  did not have land in their name.  On  this ground,  it  was contended before the  Additional  Collector that  in fact the allotment was obtained by the  respondents                                                    PG NO 863 by misrepresenting that they are landless persons and on the basis  of this the allotments were made which could  not  be justified.     Before the High Court it was contended that Sec. 14  of the  U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act which provides for allotment  of land only talks of landless persons. Sec. 14 as it stood  in the  year 1968 enabled the Samiti to settle the land  vested in it with landless persons. Section neither specifies  that such landless persons should also be agricultural  labourers nor it provided that they have to be residents of a place in which  the  concerned lands were located. It  was  also  not provided  that  the  persons must be such  whose  source  of livelihood  is agriculture. The High Court on the  basis  of its  earlier  decision felt that Section 14 as it  stood  in 1968 did not provide any one of these qualifying clauses and therefore the respondents who admittedly had no land in that village   and  the  district,  they  were  covered  by   the definition  of landless persons, in spite of the  fact  that they  may  be  traders  and  paying  income-tax,  may   have properties  in the City of Kanpur, still the learned  Judges of  the High Court felt that they fell within the  ambit  of the  definition of landless persons as it stood in 1968  and therefore  settlement  made in their favour  was  justified. High Court relied on Sec. 14 as it stood in 1968. It reads:     "Grant  of land to landless persons--The  Committee  or such  other authority or person as the Committee  may,  with the   approval  of  the  State  Government  specify   either generally  or  in  respect of any area, may  in  the  manner prescribed,  grant  lands  which have vested in  it  to  the landless persons, and the grantee of the land shall--     (i)  where the land is situate in any estate which  has vested in the State Government under and in accordance  with Section  4 of the U.P. Zamindari Land Abolition and  Reforms Act,  1950,  enquire  in  such  land  the  rights  and   the liabilities of a sirdar, and     (ii)  where  it is situate in any other  area,  acquire therein  such  rights and liabilities and  subject  to  such conditions,   restrictions   and  limitations  as   may   be prescribed  and the same shall have effect, any law  to  the contrary notwith-standing. It  is  not  disputed that these  allotments  were  made  in accordance  with  Sec. 14 but had not been approved  by  the Government  and  it  was even  before  that  the  Additional                                                    PG NO 864 Collector took notice of the  complaint and issued notice to the respondents and on the basis of his enquiry he cancelled the  allotments  made in their favour by the Order  in  1976 which has been quashed by the High Court.     It  was contended by learned counsel appearing for  the petitioner  (Bhoodan  Yagna Samiti) that  although  Sec.  14 quoted above does not clearly indicate what the law meant by landless persons but in view of the scheme of Bhooden  Yagna the  movement  which  Acharya Vinoba Bhave  and  later  Jaya Prakash  Narain carried out and the purpose of the  movement clearly  indicated  that  when  in  Sec.  14  allotment  was contemplated  in  favour of landless persons it  only  meant those  landless persons whose main source of livelihood  was agriculture  and  who were agriculturists  residing  in  the village  where the land is situated and who has no  land  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

their name at that time. It never meant that all those  rich persons  who are residing in the cities and have  properties in their possession but who are technically landless persons as they did not have any agricultural land in their name  in the  tehsil  or the village where the land was  situated  or acquired by the Bhoodan Samiti that it could be allotted  in their favour. This was not the purpose or the philosophy  of Bhoodan  Yagna  and therefore it was contended that  such  a view which has been taken by the learned Judges of the  High Court  is contrary to law and the interpretation put by  the High Court on the language of Sec 14 could not be justified. It was contended that landless person has to be  interpreted in  the    background of the law which was enacted  and  the movement  and the philosophy behind the movement  which  was the  basis  of the enactment of this law and it is  only  in that  background that these words landless persons could  be properly interpreted.     It  was  also contended that if there   was  any  doubt left. Sec. 15 makes the things still clearer. Sec. 15 reads:     Grants  to  be made in accordance  with  Bhoodan  Yagna Scheme--All  grants  shall  be  made as far  as  may  be  in accordance with scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna.     Sec.  15 provides that all grants shall be made so  far as  may  be  in accordance with the scheme  of  the  Bhoodan Yagna,  and  it could not       be disputed  that  Bhoodan Yagna scheme only contemplated allotment of lands in  favour of  those landless agricultural labourers who were  residing in the villages concerned and whose source of livlihood  was agriculture  and who were landless and in that context  only the  landless  person could be  understood  as  contemplated                                                    PG NO 865 under  Sec. 14. It appears that in 1975 by an  amendment  in place  of landless persons in Sec. 14 landless  agricultural labourers  was substituted and the objects and reasons  when this  Amendment Bill was moved, clearly go to show  that  it was  because  of  such  errors  committed  that  it   became necessary to make this amendment. The Objects and Reasons of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975 reads:     Prefatory  Note--Statement of Objects and  Reasons--The Uttar   Pradesh  Bhoodan  Yagna  Act,  1952   provides   for distribution of Bhoodan land to the landless persons by  the Uttar  Pradesh Bhoodan Samiti. It has come to the notice  of Government  that in certain cases persons other  than  land- less  persons have also received by fraud the  land  donated under  the  said  Act. It has also come  to  the  notice  of Government that in many cases, for various reasons, the land vested in the Committee is not actually distributed. It has, therefore,   been  considered  necessary  to   empower   the Collector to cancel the grants received by misrepresentation or  fraud, and further, where the committee does  not  grant the land within a period of three years to authorise him  to distribute the land according to the provisions of the Act.     By  this Amendment Act in Sec. 14 in place of  landless person landless agricultural labourers was substituted,  and this  clearly  shows that it became necessary  only  because such  errors were committed   in under-standing the  meaning of words landless persons .     The  rule  of interpretation which had  been  generally accepted in later part of 19th century and the first half of 20th  century  was that the word should be given  its  plain ordinary  dictionary  meaning and it is clear  that  learned Judges   of  the  High  Court  in  the   impugned   judgment interpreted the words landless persons on that basis and  in so  doing they followed their earlier judgment. But  if  the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna which has to be looked into  because

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

of  Sec.  l5  has been looked into or  the  purpose  of  the movement of Bhoodan Yagna which was started by late  Acharya Vinoba  Bhave and followed by Shri Jaya Prakash  Narain  was understood,   this  interpretation  would  not   have   been possible.     In India we have yet another problem. The movement  and the  problems which are debated at all levels is not in  the language   in  which  ultimately  the  law  to  meet   those                                                    PG NO 866 situations  was  enacted. The Bhoodan  Yagna  movement  used generally a term Bhoomihin Kissan and it is this term  which gained  momentum and virtually was understood to mean  those agricultural  labourers  whose main source of  livlihood  is agriculture  but Who have no lands of their own or who  have no  lands  (agricultural)  recorded in their  names  in  the revenue  record and it is this problem of  Bhoomihin  Kissan that  this  movement went on to to settle and this  Act  was enacted  to  remedy  that problem but  our  draftsman  while drafting  the  law borrowed the phrase  landless  person  in place of Bhoomihin Kissan and this unfortunately led to  the present interpretation put by the High Court in the impugned judgment   as   the  High  Court  followed   the   rule   of interpretation which in my opinion has become obsolete.     At  the  time  when Acharya Vinoba  Bhave  started  his movement  of Bhoodan Yagna our rural society had a  peculiar diversity. There were some who owned or had leasehold rights in  vast tracks of agricultural lands whereas on  the  other hand  there  were those who were working on  agriculture  as labourers  in the fields and depending on what  little  they got from their masters. Sometimes they were even bound  down to  their masters and therefore had to lead miserable  life. It  was  this  problem in rural India  which  attracted  the attention  of  Acharya Vinoba Bhave followed  by  Shri  Jaya Prakash Narain and they secured large donations of land from big  land  holders  and  the scheme  of  the  Bhoodan  Yagna movement  was  to distribute this land  to  those  Bhoomihin Kissan  who  were living on agriculture but had no  land  of their  own and it was to make this effective  and  statutory that  this law was enacted and in this context it  is  clear that  if  one  had noticed even the slogan  of  the  Acharya Vinoba  Bhave  s movement or its basis and  the  purpose  it would  have  clearly indicated the problem which was  to  be remedied  by this enactment and if this was looked into  for the  purpose of interpretation of the term landless  persons no  Court could have come to the conclusion which  has  been arrived at in the impugned judgment.     In this country we have a heritage of rich  literature, it is interesting to note that literature of  interpretation also  is very well-known. The principles  of  interpretation have  been  enunciated in various Shlokas  which  have  been known  for hundreds of years. One such Shlok  (Verse)  which describes these principles with great precision is:             "UPKRAMOP SANHARO ABHYASO UPPURWATA                                                    PG NO 867 FALAM ARTHWADOPPATTI CH LINGAM TATPARYA NIRNAYE" This  in  short  means  that  when  you  have  to  draw  the conclusion from a writing you have to read it from beginning till end. As without doing it, it is difficult to understand the  purpose,  if there is any repetition  or  emphasis  its meaning  must be understood. If there is any curiosity or  a curious problem tackled it should be noticed and the  result thereof  must be understood. If there is any new  innovation (Uppurwatta)  or something new it should be taken  note  of. Then one must notice the result of such innovation. Then  it is  necessary to find what the author intends to convey  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

in what context.     This  principle  of interpretation was  not  enunciated only  for  interpretation of law but it was  enunciated  for interpretating  any  piece of literature and it  meant  that when  you have to give meaning to anything in  writing  then you   must  understand  the  real  meaning.  You  can   only understand the real meaning by understanding the  reference, context,  the circumstances in which it was stated  and  the problems or the situations which were intended to be met  by what   was  said  and  it  is  only  when  you   take   into consideration  all  this background, circumstances  and  the problems  which  have to be tackled that  you  could  really understand  the real meaning of the words. This  exactly  is the principle which deserves to be considered.     When  we are dealing with the phrase  landless  persons these  words  are from English language and therefore  I  am reminded of what Lord Denning said about it. Lord Denning in The Discipline of Law at Page No. 12 observed as under:     Whenever  a statute comes up for consideration it  must be remembered that it is not within human powers to  foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise, and, even if  it were,  it is not possible to provide for them in terms  free from   all  ambiguity.  The  English  language  is  not   an instrument  of mathematical precision. Our literature  would be  much the poorer if it were. This is where the  draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticized. A Judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else,  laments that  the draftsmen have not provided for this or  that,  or have  been  guilty  of some or  other  ambiguity.  It  would certainly save the judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were                                                    PG NO 868 drafted  with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In  the absence  of it, when a defect appears a judge cannot  simply fold his hands and blame the draftsmen. He must set to  work on  the  constructive  task  of  finding  the  intention  of Parliament. And  it is clear that when one has to look to the  intention of  the  Legislature, one has to look to  the  circumstances under  which the law was enacted. The Preamble of  the  law, the  mischief  which  was intended to  be  remedied  by  the enactment of the statute and in this context, Lord  Denning, in the same book at Page No. 10, observed as under:     At one time the Judges used to limit themselves to  the bare  reading  of  the Statute itself-to go  simply  by  the words,  giving them their grammatical meaning and  that  was all.  That view was prevalent in the l9th century and  still has some supporters today. But it is wrong in principle. The Statute  as it appears to those who have to obey it--and  to those who have to advise them what to do about it; in short, to lawyers like yourselves. Now the eccentrics cut off  from all that is happening around them. The Statute comes to them as  men  of  affairs--who have their  own  feeling  for  the meaning  of  the words and know the reason why the  Act  was passed--just as if it had been fully set out in a  preamble. So  it has been held very rightly that you can enquire  into the mischief which gave rise to the Statute--to see what was the evil which it was sought to remedy."     It is now well settled that in order to interpret a law one  must  under-stand the background and  the  purpose  for which the law was enacted. And in this context as  indicated earlier if one has bothered to under-stand the common phrase used  in the Bhoodan Movement as Bhoomihin Kissan which  has been translated into English to mean landless persons  there would  have  been no difficulty but apart from  it  even  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

contended  by learned counsel that it was clearly  indicated by  Sec.  15  that  the allotments could  only  be  made  in accordance  with  the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna. In  order  to understand  the scheme of Bhoodan and the movement  of  Shri Vinoba  Bhave, it would be worthwhile to quote  from  Vinoba And  His Mission by Suresh Ram printed with an  introduction by  Shri  Jaya  Prakash  Narain  and  foreword  by  Dr.   S. RadhaKrishnan.  In this work, statement of  annual  Sarvodya Conference at Sevapuri has been quoted as under:                                                    PG NO 869     The fundamental principle of the Bhoodan Yagna movement is  that all children of the soil have an equal  right  over the Mother Earth, in the same way as those born of a  mother have  over her. It is, therefore, essential that the  entire land of the country should be equitably redistributed  anew, providing  roughly  at least five acres of dry land  or  one acre  of wet land to every family. The Sarvodaya  Samaj,  by appealing  to the good sense of the people,  should  prepare their  minds  for this equitable  distribution  and  acquire within the next two years at least 25 lakhs of acres of land from about five lakhs of our villages on the rough basis  of five  acres  per village. This land will be  distributed  to those landless labourers who are versed in agriculture, want to take to it, and have no other means of subsistence. "                             (Underlining for emphasis by us)     This  would clearly indicate the purpose of the  scheme of Bhoodan Yagna and it is clear that Sec. 15 provided  that all allotments in accordance with Sec. 14 could only be done under the scheme of the Bhoodan Yagna.     In  the  light of the discussion above  therefore,  the judgment  of  the High Court could not  be  maintained.  The appeals  are  therefore allowed. The judgment  of  the  High Court  is set aside and the orders passed by the  Additional Collector are restored. Appellant shall be entiled to  costs of the appeals, counsel fee Rs. l,500 in each of these three appeals. G.N.                                             Appeals allowed.