STATE OF UTTARKHAND . Vs GURU RAM DAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST SOCIETY
Bench: R.M. LODHA,ANIL R. DAVE
Case number: C.A. No.-006621-006621 / 2012
Diary number: 17286 / 2009
Advocates: DINESH KUMAR GARG Vs
(MRS. ) VIPIN GUPTA
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 )