1988 (9) TMI 343 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector.
2. Validity of the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector:
The High Court held that the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to inquire into the matter under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act. This point was conceded by both parties before the Supreme Court, and thus, it was not disputed that the Additional Collector had the authority to act in this case.

Validity of the Settlement:
The primary issue was whether the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in favor of the respondents was in accordance with the law. The respondents, businessmen residing in Kanpur, were not agriculturists and did not fall into any category of landless persons dependent on agriculture. The Additional Collector found that the respondents had obtained the grants fraudulently by misrepresenting themselves as landless persons. The High Court, however, quashed the Additional Collector's order, maintaining that the respondents were covered by the definition of landless persons as per Sec. 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1968.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. It emphasized that the term "landless persons" should be understood in the context of the Bhoodan Yagna movement, which aimed to distribute land to landless agricultural laborers whose main source of livelihood was agriculture. The Court noted that the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna, as reflected in Sec. 15, intended to benefit those who were genuinely landless and dependent on agriculture.

The Supreme Court also referred to the amendment in 1975, which substituted "landless agricultural labourers" for "landless persons" in Sec. 14, indicating that the original intent was to benefit agricultural laborers. The Court concluded that the High Court's interpretation was contrary to the purpose and philosophy of the Bhoodan Yagna movement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the orders passed by the Additional Collector. The appellant was entitled to costs of the appeals, with counsel fees of Rs. 1,500 in each of the three appeals. Appeals allowed.