Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard civil appeals by special leave against orders of the Allahabad High Court in revision. The appellant, a horse-breeder, had claimed exemption from land ceiling under Section 6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. He contended that his farm was a specialised farm within the meaning of that sub-clause because certain plots were used for growing grass and special fodder crops for horses. The Prescribed Authority, Tahsil Sadar, rejected the claim; the Additional District Judge on appeal and the High Court in revision upheld the rejection. The core legal issue was interpretation of Section 6(xvii), which exempts land, other than land used for purely agricultural purposes, included in specialized farms and exclusively devoted to poultry farming or dairying or other such purposes as may be prescribed. The appellant argued that the word 'and' in the clause should be read as 'or', so that all specialised farms used for non-agricultural purposes would be exempt. The Court held that the clause specifically mentions two types of specialised farms, namely those devoted to poultry farming and dairying, and leaves other types to be prescribed by rules under Section 44 of the Act. Rule 4(4) prescribed specialised farms for sericulture, ericulture, lacculture, and pisciculture, but did not include horse-breeding farms. Therefore, the word 'and' could not be read as 'or', and the appellant's land was not exempt. The Court agreed with the interpretation placed by the High Court and dismissed all three appeals, with no order as to costs. This decision clarifies that exemption under Section 6(xvii) is limited to specified or prescribed categories and does not extend to all non-agricultural specialised farms.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Exemption from Ceiling - Specialized Farms - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section 6(xvii) - The court held that the word 'and' in the clause cannot be read as 'or'; the clause specifically mentions poultry farming and dairying, and other specialized farms must be prescribed by rules under Section 44; Rule 4(4) does not include horse-breeding farms, so appellant's land is not exempt. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 should be interpreted by reading 'and' as 'or', thereby exempting all specialised farms used for non-agricultural purposes including horse-breeding.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs. Court agreed with High Court interpretation that Section 6(xvii) limits exemption to poultry farming or dairying or other purposes prescribed by rules, and Rule 4(4) does not include horse-breeding. Civil Appeal No. 2018 of 1968 and the other two appeals fail.
Law Points
- The word 'and' in Section 6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
- 1960 cannot be read as 'or'
- exemption limited to poultry farming
- dairying
- or other purposes prescribed by rules
- Rule 4(4) does not include horse-breeding farms
- exemption not available to horse-breeding farm
