JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Whether a Tank is ‘land’ within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is the Principal question involved in this application.
2. The petitioner is a land-holder It filed a return alleging that it is in possession of 443.90 acres of land.
3. A draft publication was made whereafter an objection was filed by the petitioner under Section 10(2) of the said Act on 9-7-1975 inter alia alleging therein that certain tanks and ridges have wrongly been included in the said draft publication.
4. By an order dated 9-10-1982 passed in Ceiling case No. 250 of 1973, the Additional Collector held that the tanks in question come within the purview of the definition of ‘land’. In terms of the said finding a notification under Section 11 of the Act was issued. A Gazette notification dated 16-3-1983 thereafter was published in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed. A revision application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
6. Mr. K, D. Chattcrjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitfoner has raised a short question in support of this application.
7. The learned counsel submitted that from the definition of the land as contained in Section 2(f) of the Act. It would appear that only ‘even land’ perinnially submerged under water’ only comes within the purview thereof. In other words the submission of Mr. Chatterjee is that the lands perinnially submerged under water which is even only would come within the purview of Section 2(f) of the Act.
8. Section 2(0 of the Act reads thus :-
“Land means land which is used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture and includes land which is an orchard, Kharhur, or pasturage or forest land or even land perennially submerged under water or homestead of a land-holder.”.
9. It is now well know that where the legislature in defining a word uses both the words ‘means’ and ‘includes’ the same is exhaustive.
10. Within the aforementioned inclusive definition of the ‘land’, is Orchard, Kharchur, Pasturage or Forest land, and even land perennially submerged under water or the homestead of a land-holder.
11. The word ‘even’ thus was not used as an objective to the word land but is used for laying down emphasis to the word ‘land’ so as to convey the meaning of also.
12. Evenness of land perennially submerged under water, in my opinion, has no relevance at all in the context of the interpretation of the word ‘land’ or the object or purport of the Act. Even a hilly, rocky, sandy or forest lands come within the purview of Section 2(0 of the Act.
13. A Forest land, an orchard and Kharhur, pasturage forest land as also submerged under water or homestead of a land-holder may not be used or capable of being used for agriculture and horticulture purposes, but even such land have been brought within the purview of the definition of the ‘land’ which clearly bear out the intention of the legislature to bring more types of lands within the purview of the interpretation clause contained in Section 2(f) of the Act.
14. Section 2(f) of the Act was amended
by Act No. 55 of 1982. By reason of the said Amending Act itself even hilly, sandy or forest land, even land perennially sub-merged under water or other kind of land none of which yieled paddy crops have been brought within the purview of Section 4 of the said Act by inserting Clause (f) therein.
15. Hilly lands or sandy lands for instance are not arable lands but still the same have been included in the definition of the land. It is in that context only the word “even land” has been used so as to lay emphasis on the expanded meaning of the land ‘perennially submerged under water.’
16. In the connection, it must be noticed that explanation appended to Section 2(f) of the said Act provides that the land perennially submerged under water does not include lands submerged in the bed of a river. In terms of the aforementioned explanation,this land submerged in the bed of river has been excluded, but not others.
17. It is now well known that a dictionary meaning of a word may not be looked into where the same has been statutorily defined or judicially interpreted. The court has to select the meaning which is relevant to the definition in which it has interpreted the word (see State of Orissa v. Titagarh Paper Mills Company, AIR 1985 SC 1293 : 1985 Tax LR 2948.
18. The intention of the Legislature, in
my opinion, is clear in as much as in terms of the aforementioned definition of the lands perennially submerged under water would not only bring it within the purview of tank but’ also a ‘pond or a ditch.’
19. It is not the case of the petitioner that tanks in question are not used for agriculture purposes. It is now well known that a tank with its ridges and agriculture lands surrounding the same can be taken settlement of and used for agriculture purposes.
20. Reference in this connection may be made to Sardamoni Devi, v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 Patna 106.
21. Mr. Chatterjee has placed a strong
reliance upon a decision of a learned single Judge in Mohan Prasad. Mahto v. State of Bihar reported in 1990 (2) BJLR 953, The decision has been rendered in the peculiar fact of that case and has no bearing to the fact of the present case.
22. In that case it was admitted that the pond in question was treated as a ‘sairat’ and which had been put on yearly auction as Sairat interest of the Government in which the petitioner also participated.
23. In that context it was held :–
“There is no averment this pond is connected with the agriculture purpose. In that event, it could not have been acquired as surplus land and declare it as Sairat and Settled with others, and not to landless people to whom the acquired land is required to be distributed. As I have pointed out, the main aim of the legislature in passing the Act was to facilitate the personal cultivation of land by certain classes of raiyat and follow the under-raiyats as the status of raiyat. The definition of the land is that it must be a land which is either used or capable of being used for agriculture purpose and such homestead land which is concerned with agriculture operation. The Act has, therefore, no application to such lands, which are used purely for non agricultural purpose : see Gaswani v. Bash, 1971 BLJR 974. The pond in question is neither arable nor agricultual land nor it is connected with any agriculture purpose. It is sought to be settled with persons who may or may not be raiyats or under-raiyats, but are successful biders in an auction irrespective of the fact whether he is landless person or Harijan etc. on yearly basis. This does not fall within the scheme of Section 27 of the Act, as would be evident from Chapter IX dealing with the disposal of surplus land. Further, yearly settlement of a pond cannot be heritable and transferable as is required under Section 27(3) of the Act.”
24. The decision of this court in Mohan Prasad Mahto v. State of Bihar (supra), therefore, instead of helping the petitioner goes against his contention.
25. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that
‘tank which is used for agriculture purposes, would come within the purview of the definition of the land as contained in Section 2(f) of the Act.
26. Thus, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.