DHURUB DEO MAL Vs. JAI MANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree with my learned colleague and desire to add a few words.

(2.) The specific question for decision before us is whether a proprietor, who has obtained a permission under Section 24, U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act of 1940 for making the gift, can, instead of making the gift, make a sale, or, to put it in more general words, whether a proprietor who obtains permission for making one kind of permanent alienation can make another kind of such alienation. As already stated in the judgment of my learned brother, the permission obtained from the Assistant Collector, in charge of the sub-division, was for making a gift. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the object of the U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act was to protect agriculturists from themselves and to save for them sufficient land for their livelihood and that being so, if permission has been granted for gift, it should be interpreted to contain in itself a permission for sale also, because by sale the alienor is able to receive some consideration, whereas by gift he receives no such consideration.

(3.) The expression "permanent alienation" has been defined in Sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act and it means only three kinds of transfers, namely, sale, exchange or gift, but does not include a transfer by gift for a charitable purpose or a transfer by will. The rules framed by the Provincial Government in accordance with Sections 24 and 35 indicate that the Assistant Collector has to apply his mind to the nature of the transfer. It is clear on a perusal of those rules that it is on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances of the case that he has to grant or refuse the permission. Suppose a proprietor wants to make a gift of his land to a close relation of his, a son or a daughter, and on this representation the Assistant Collector grants the permission thinking that, as the property is going to remain in the family and is not passing to a non-agriculturist, the permission should be granted. Having obtained the permission from the Assistant Collector on such a representation, I do not think it is open to the proprietor to make a sale of the property to a stranger instead of making the gift as proposed by him before the Assistant Collector. Sale of property, no doubt, would bring consideration to the proprietor, but he may squander away the money so received. If the Assistant Collector had been informed that the proprietor was to sell the property to a stranger, he may not have granted the permission,