GOPINDER SINGH
_v._
,.,._ FOREST DEPARTMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.
AUGUST 17, 1990
###### [M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, n:J
_Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules,_ _1968:_ _Rule 7(a)-Grant_
_of nautor land_ _to_ _a resident having income of more_ _than_ _Rs.2,000 per_
_'<annum-Validity of_
##### -- _,,
Clause (a) of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules,
1968 makes every resident of the estate having less than ten bighas of
land or having an income of less than Rs.2,000 per annum from all
sources including lands, eligible for grant ofland in nautor.
-~ _ The grant of nautor land to the appellant-teacher was set aside by
the Financial Commissioner in revision. The High Court dismissed the
writ petition _in limine._
In the appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant
that the word 'or' occurring in-between the first and the second part of
cl. (a) of Rule 7 has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be
read as 'and' that the two parts of the cluase were, therefore, indepen., dent of each other and had to be read disjunctively, and that he being
eligible under the first part, even though having an income of more than
Rs.2,000 per annum as a teacher, the second part of cl. (a) was not
attracted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: I. A person who has got less than IO bighas ofland but has
~an **income of m9re than Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including**
the said land is not eligible for allotment of nautor land under cl. (a) of
Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. [800G]
2. The object of granting nautor land under the Rules is to help
poor and unprovided for residents of the State. Considering the nature,
scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is necessary
to read the word 'or' in-between the first and the second part of clause
A
B
###### c
D
E
F
G
.lia) as 'and'. The two parts cannot, therefore, be read disjunctively. The
second part makes it clear that an income of less than Rs.2,000 per H
annum should be from all sources including lands. [800H; 80IA]
797
A
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] .3 S.C.R.
3. The appellant's income in the instant case. being more than
Rs.2,000 per annum he was not entitled to the grant of nautor land. [SOJA]~
CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006
of 1981.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1981 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 94of 1981.
#### c
D
E
F
M.V. Goswami for the Appellant.
Nemo for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. "Nautor land"' under Rule 3 of the Himachal
Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called 'Rules') means
the right to utilize with the sanction of the competent authority, waste
land owned by the Government outside the towns, outside the
reserved and demarcated protected forests, and outside such other
areas as may be notified from tinie to time by the State Government.
Gopinder Singh applied for the grant of nautor land measuring
14 bighas 12 biswas situated in vmage Kanai for cultivation. The
Revenue Assistant Chopal vide his order dated June 29, 1972 sane- ',
tioned nautor land measuring 1 l bighas 1 biswas situated in village
Kanai to him on payment of Rs.552.50 as Nazarana. The Forest
Department filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy
Commissioner Simla which was accepted and the order of the Revenue
Assistant Chopal sanctioning nautor land in favour of Gopinder Singh was set aside.
- Gopinder Singh filed further appeal to Divisional Commissioner,
Himachal Pradesh at Simla who accepted the same and vide his order
dated September 9, 1974 restored the grant of nautor land to Gopinder
Singh. The Forest Department filed revision petition be~ore the Finan
_J_
G cial Commissiner (Revenue Appeals) Himachal Pradesh who accepted
the revision petition and set aside the order dated September 9, 1974
of the Divisional Commissioner sanctioning nautor land to Gopinder
Singh. He- furthe_r ordered that -the amount of Nazarana should_ be
1
refunded to Gopinder Singh and the land resumed to the State. The
Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal on the following two
_H grounds:
GOPINDER _v._ FOREST DEPTT. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 799
(1) Gopinder Singh felled the trees on the land without waiting
for necessary approval of the Divisional Forest Officer and
as such he took the law in his own hands.
A
(2) Being a teacher in a Government school drawing monthly
emoluments of more than Rs.650 p.m. his economic condi
tion was reasonably good and as such he was not eligible for B
the grant of nautor land under the Rules.
_ - ~'-Against the order of the Financial Commissioner Gopinder Singh filed
' Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla which was dismissed _in_ _limine_ ·on July 28, 1981. This appeal by special leave is by
appellant-Gopinder Singh against the orders of the Financial Commissioner and of the High Court.
----~ - Rule 7 of the Rules lays down the categories of persons eligible
for the grant of nautor land. The said rule is as under:
### c
D
"Eligibility for nautor land.-Save for the widow and the
children of a member of an armed force or semi-armed
force, who has laid down his life for the country (whose
widow and children will be eligible for g1ant anywhere
within the Tehsil subject to the conditions mentioned in the
Wajib-ul-arj in respect of the areas where the land applied E
for is situated) no one who is not the resident in the estate
in which the land applied for is situate, shall be eligible for
the grant. Every resident of the estate in which the land
applied for lies will be eligible in the following order of
preference:
(a) Such persons who have less than ten bighas of land,
whether as owners, or as tenants, or as lessees, either individually or collectively, or have an income of less than
Rs.2,000 per annum from all sources including lands.
Provided that in this category a dependent of one who has
F
laid down his life for the defence of the country shall get G
preference over his counterparts;
(b) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applicants;
( c) The dependants of those who have laid down their 1.ives
for the defence of the country. Service for the defence .of H
A
B
### c
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.
the country will mean service in a uniformed force as well as
in the capcity of civilian, so long as the death occurs on ar
front, be it military or civil; ...._
( d) Serving personnel in the armed forces and Ex-servicemen;
(e) Panchayats, and
(f) others;
Provided that a bonafide landless resident of Spiti shall be
eligible for the grant of land in Nautor within the spiti Sub
**Division."**
__;-!_
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on
first part of clause (a) of Rule 7 to show that the appellant was having
less than 10 bighas of land and as such as was eligible for the grant of
nautor land. He further contended that even though he may be having
O an income of more than Rs.2,000 per annum as a teacher, he being
eligible under the first part, the second part of clause (a) of Rule 7 is
not attracted in his case. According to him first and the second part of
clause (a) of Rule 7 are independent to each other and there being 'or'
in between the two parts these have to be read disjunctively. He contends that 'or' has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be
E read as 'and'. '·
F
G
H
We have carefully examined the provisions of clause (a) of Rule
7 reproduced above. The clause reads "such persons who have less
than JO bighas of land ... or have an income of less than 2,000 per
annum _from_ _all sources including lands."_ There is thus inherent evi- ·•
dence in the clause itself to show that the two parts cannot be read
disjunctively. The second part makes it clear that an income of less
than Rs.2,000 per annum should be from all sources _including lands._ It ~
is thus obvious that a person who has got less than 10 bighas of Ian< but
has an income of more than Rs.2,000 from the said land, is not eligible
for allotment of nautor land under clause (a). Even otherwise if we
interpret the clause the way learned counsel for the appellant wants us
to do it would produce absurd result. A person have two bighas of land
but otherwise earning Rs.20,000 per annum would be eligible for allotment of nautor land if we accept the appellant's interpretation. The
object of granting nautor land under the rules is to help poor and l.
unprovided for residents of Himachal Pradesh. Considering the
nature, scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is
GOPINDER _v._ FOREST DEPTT. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 801
necessary to read the word "or" in betw_een the first and the second part
,k of clause (a) as "and". The appellant's income was admittedly more
- than Rs.2,000 per annum and as such his claim for nautor land was
rightly rejected.
We, therefore, do not agree with the conteil.tions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
with no order as to costs.
-~-:._- P.S.S. Appeal dismissed .
,
# •
A
B
