Page 1

Civil     Appeal     @     SLP     (C)     No.     19661/2009   

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.      6621      OF      2012   (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19661 of 2009)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.                  Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

GURU RAM DAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST SOCIETY       Respondent(s)

J      U      D      G      M      E      N      T   

R.M.     Lodha,     J.   

We have heard Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned  

counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Shanti Bhushan,  

learned senior counsel for the respondent.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. The controversy in this Appeal, by special leave,  

is in respect of land admeasuring 1.626 hectares situate in  

village Chalang, Dehradun out of 6.785 hectares which was  

transferred by the Bhumidhar to respondent, Guru Ram Das  

Educational Trust Society in 1992. A notice under  

Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and  

Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, '1950 Act') was issued  

by the Assistant Collector First Class/Sub Divisional

Page 2

Civil     Appeal     @     SLP     (C)     No.     19661/2009   

2

Magistrate, Dehradun to the respondent to show cause why  

the said land should not be entered into the revenue  

records in the name of the State Government and possession  

of the same be taken forcibly as the transfer in its favour  

was void. In response to the notice, the respondent filed  

its objections and set up diverse grounds.  One of the  

objections raised by the respondent was that there was no  

prohibition under Section 154 of the 1950 Act on transfer  

by way of sale to a charitable trust for charitable  

purpose.

5. The Assistant Collector overruled the objections  

and, by his order dated January 27, 2006, came to the  

conclusion that the respondent  held 1.626 hectares in  

excess of the permissible limit and declared that the  

excess land admeasuring 1.626 hectares shall vest in the  

State Government.

6. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, the  

respondent filed a revision application before the  

Commissioner, Garhwal Division. The revisional authority  

dismissed the revision application preferred by the  

respondent Trust.

7. Not satisfied with the orders of the Assistant  

Collector and Commissioner, the respondent challenged these  

orders in a Writ Petition before the High Court of  

Uttarakhand.  The single Judge of the High Court allowed

Page 3

Civil     Appeal     @     SLP     (C)     No.     19661/2009   

3

the Writ Petition principally on the ground that the  

subject land was being used for non agricultural purpose  

for more than ten years and declaration under Section 143  

of the 1950 Act was not necessary. He further held that the  

provisions of Section 154 were not applicable and,  

accordingly, quashed and set aside the orders of the  

Commissioner and Assistant Collector.  It is against this  

order that the State of Uttaranchal (Now, Uttarakhand) and  

its functionaries have come up in appeal by special leave.

8. Section 154 of the 1950 Act, as it stood at the  

relevant time, read as under :-

“Section 154. Restriction on transfer by a  bhumidhar.- (1) Save as provided in sub-section  (2), no bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer  by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to  any person where the transferee shall, as a result  of such sale or gift, become entitled to land which  together with land, if any, held by his family will  in the aggregate, exceed 5.0586 hectares (12.50  acres) in Uttar Pradesh. (2) Subject to the provisions of any other law  relating to the land tenures for the time being in  force, the State Government may, by general or  special order, authorise transfer in excess of the  limit prescribed in sub-section (1) if it is of the  opinion that such transfer is in favour of a  registered co-operative society or an institution  established for a charitable purpose, which does  not have land sufficient for its need or that the  transfer is in the interest of general public.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the  expression 'family' shall mean the transferee, his  or her wife or husband (as the case may be) and  minor children, and where the transferee is a minor  also his or her parents.”

Page 4

Civil     Appeal     @     SLP     (C)     No.     19661/2009   

4

9. The question before us is - Whether a charitable  

trust is covered by the expression 'any person'  occurring  

in Section 154(1) of the 1950 Act?

10. It may be immediately noticed that the expression  

used in Section 154(1) is “....to any     person   where the  

transferee shall, as a result of such sale or gift, become  

entitled to land which together with land,  if any,  held  

by his     family    will  in the  aggregate, exceed 5.0586  

hectares (12.50 acres) in Uttar Pradesh.”  (emphasis  

supplied)   A close look at the above expression would show  

that the Legislature intended to cover only natural person.  

It is so because the words 'any person' are followed in the  

sentence by the words 'his family'. 'Family' is explained  

in the explanation appended to Section 154 which means the  

transferee, his or her wife or husband, as the case may be,  

and minor children and where transferee is a minor, his or  

her parents.  This makes it clear that a legal person is  

not intended to be included in the expression 'any person'.  

The word 'person', in law, may include both a natural  

person and a legal person. Sometimes it is restricted to  

the former.  Having regard to the text of Section 154(1)  

and also the scheme of that provision, there remains no  

doubt that the expression 'any person' refers to a natural

Page 5

Civil     Appeal     @     SLP     (C)     No.     19661/2009   

5

person and not an artificial person.   This  is fortified  

by the fact that in 1997 the Legislature inserted  

Explanation by U.P.  Act No.  20 of  1997  declaring  that  

in  sub-section (1) the expression 'person' shall include  

and be deemed to have been included on June 15, 1976  

a 'Co-operative Society'. Had the expression 'person'  

included artificial person, no explanation was necessary.  

Since the expression 'person' in Section 154 did not  

include legal or artificial person, the Legislature brought  

in Co-operative Society by way of an Explanation. The  

Explanation came to be added in 1997 in a declaratory form  

to retrospectively bring 'Co-operative Society' within the  

meaning of expression 'any person'.

11. Accordingly, we hold, as it must be held, that a  

‘charitable institution’ is not included within the meaning  

of the expression 'any person' occurring in Section 154 of  

the 1950 Act and, therefore, the Assistant Collector was  

not justified in issuing notice to the respondent under  

Sections 166 and 167 of the 1950 Act.

12. Though we are not in agreement with the reasoning  

of the High Court fully, but in view of what we have  

indicated above, no interference is called for in the  

impugned order.

Page 6

Civil     Appeal     @     SLP     (C)     No.     19661/2009   

6

13. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to  

costs.

........................J. ( R.M. LODHA )

NEW DELHI; .........................J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 ( ANIL R. DAVE )