SHYAMVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Inspite of a general notice having been published in the official gazettee as contemplated by Section 9 of the Act the petitioner did not submit the return of his ceiling area in the form prescribed. Consequently the Prescribed Authority served the petitioner with a notice as contemplated by Section 10 (2) of the Act. The notice was accompanied with the requisite statement prepared under sub-section (1) thereof calling upon him to show cause within the period specified in the notice why the statement be not taken as correct. The petitioner filed an objection inter alia asserting that a sale deed executed by him on 5th February, 1972, in favour of one Smt. Shanti Devi had erroneously been ignored and that his land situated in village Rajpur was unirrigated and had erroneously been treated as irrigated. Both these pleas were repelled by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 14th October, 1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was dismissed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, on 15th July, 1975. Aggrieved he has instituted this writ petition.

(2.) THE two pleas referred to above which were raised by the petitioner in his objection and were repelled by the Prescribed Authority, had also been raised by him in the appeal and have been pressed before me in this writ petition. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed dated 5th February, 1972, had erroneously been ignored by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional Civil Judge and that the petitioner's land of village Rajpur has erroneously been determined as irrigated.

(3.) ON a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules it is clear that the ceiling area contemplated by Section 5 (1) of the Act has to be determined in terms of irrigated land. Land held by the tenure-holder in excess of the ceiling area is to be declared surplus. Form 2, in which the tenure-holder is required to voluntarily submit the statement of ceiling area, has inter alia to show, as already seen above, the extent of his irrigated land as also unirrigated land. Likewise Form 3, which contains the statement prepared in accordance with Section 10 (1) of the Act and which is to be served along with notice under Section 10 (2), has also to contain the extent of the tenure-holders irrigated and unirrigated area. It has further to give in its column 6 of part A the tenure-holder's ceiling area in terms of irrigated land. It is a settled principle of law that if a term stands defined in the Act the said term is to be given the same meaning wherever it is used in the Act unless a contrary intention is expressed. Nothing has been brought to my notice either in the Act or in the Rules which may contain an indication that the term irrigated area is to be given the meaning according to its definition for some purposes and a different meaning for other purposes. No contrary intention having thus been expressed the term 'irrigated land' has to be given the same meaning wherever the said term occurs in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder as has been assigned to it in the definition clause. Consequently there is no escape from the conclusion that when the tenure-holder is required to submit his statement in Form 2 he has to calculate the area of his irrigated land in accordance with its definition under the Act. Likewise Form 3 prepared under Section 10 (1) of the Act is to contain the statement about the area of irrigated land in conformity with the requirements of the definition of the said term. Since the ceiling area is to be determined in terms of irrigated land this area can be determined only if the extent of the tenure-holder's irrigated land is calculated in the manner provided for in the definition of the said term. If any other manner is taken recourse to it would be impossible to determine the extent of the petitioner's ceiling area in terms of irrigated land as contemplated by the Act. As such if any manner for determining the extent of irrigated land other than the manner contemplated by the definition of the term is adopted the extent of the irrigated land would not represent the extent of such land as contemplated by the Act. It is again a settled principle of law that if a particular thing is by statute required to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all. In this view of the matter I find it difficult to accept the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the words "the prescribed authority shall determine such land to be irrigated land for the purposes of this Act", used in Section 4-A of the Act refer only to the judicial adjudication by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the objection of the tenure-holder under Section 12 of the Act. In my opinion the word "determine" apart from judicial decision also includes within its ambit its dictionary meaning. According to Webster the word "determine" inter alia means "to decide by authoritative and judicial sentence ; as the court has determined the cause ; to pronounce formally ; to state, to enounce, to come to a decision concerning, as a result of investigation, reasoning etc. ; as I am unable to determine its meaning ; to obtain definite and first hand knowledge of as to character, location, quantity or the like ; as to determine a rock, a route, the salt in sea water."