Ram Pal Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Lko. Division, Lko. and Others

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 27.1.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Lucknow Division Lucknow in case No. 00473/2020 computerized Case No. C- 202010000000475 (Ram Pal versus State of U.P. & Others) U/S 333 of U.P. L.R. Act 1950 and order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and also quash the order dated 20.09.2008 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. Contained ANNEXURE NO. 1,2&3 to this writ petition."

¶11

The issue involved in the instant petition is that "whether the previous approval

¶12

of Assistant Collector concerned was required in terms of the Section 157-AA of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950') in the instant case which relates

¶13

to transfer of land by Naumilal, a person of Scheduled Castes community, to petitioner / Ram Pal, a person of scheduled caste community."

¶14

In order to coming to the conclusion on the aforesaid issue, this Court took note of para-13 of the writ petition, which is as under:-

¶15

"13.That it is also submitted that the purchaser and seller both are scheduled caste community, so there is no need to take the permission from the Assistant Collector, it is also submitted that Naumi Lal being the scheduled caste community so he has no need to take the permission for selling his land to scheduled caste community, person,

¶16

and when Naumi Lal want to sell to another person then it is necessary to take the permission, but in the instant matter there is no need to take the permission as such section 157-K of (k) of U.P.Z.A. Act is fully applicable in the case of the petitioner."

¶17

The issue involved in this case has already been decided by this Court in

¶18

following judgments:

¶19

(i) Kesho Devi vs. Commissioner and others, Writ - C No.27135 of 2019, dated 19.08.2019,

¶20

(ii) Dulari and 6 others versus Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and another, Writ - B No.211 of 2022, dated 08.03.2022.

¶21

5.1. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Kesho Devi (Supra)

¶22

are reproduced herein-under :-

¶23

The admitted facts of the case are that a patta was granted in favour of Tannee who belong to the scheduled caste. On the death of Tannee, the land came to be recorded in the names of Mansoor and Dilawar his sons. It appears that the aforesaid Mansoor and Dilawar came to be recorded as bhumidhars with transferable rights in accordance with the provisions of Section 131-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

¶24

The aforesaid two persons executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that although the name of the petitioner was mutated, a case no. 12 of 2012, under Sections 167, 168 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, State Vs. Kesho Devi was registered in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nageena, District Bijnor as the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was allegedly executed without obtaining the prior permission required under Section 157AA of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

¶25

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nageena finding that the provisions of Section 157AA, had not been complied with and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner had been executed without obtaining permission for the same, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was held to be a transferee, contrary to the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the property subject matter of the sale deed was ordered to vest in the State. The petitioner thereafter, filed a restoration application, which was rejected and the aforesaid two orders have been affirmed upon dismissal of the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

¶26

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that since the patta in favour of Tannee had been granted more than 25 years ago and the patta holder and his sons who succeeded him became bhumidhars with transferable rights in accordance with Section 131-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Since they were bhumidhars with transferable rights and since both the vendor and the

¶27

vendee namely the petitioner belong to the scheduled caste, no permission was required prior to the execution of the sale deed and in holding to the contrary, the Courts below have committed manifest illegality. The impugned orders are therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶28

An identical controversy has been decided by me earlier vide judgment dated 10.08.2015 passed in Writ-C No. 44406 of 2015, Amichandra Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others.

¶29

The portion of the aforenoted judgment relevant for the purposes also of the instant writ petition is being quoted in extenso:-

¶30

"157-AA. Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming bhumidhar under Section 131-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A, and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to a Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference:

¶31

(a) landless agricultural labourer,

¶32

(b) marginal farmer,

¶33

(c) small farmer; and

¶34

(d) a person other than a person referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c).

¶35

(2) A transfer in favour of a person belonging to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in Clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in Clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in Clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section if a person referred to in Clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (d) of the said sub-section in the same order of preference:

¶36

(a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate;

¶37

(b) secondly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate;

¶38

(c) thirdly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate.

¶39

(3) If no person referred to in Sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in Sub-sections (i) and (2).

¶40

(4) No transfer under this section shall be made except with the previous approval

¶41

of the Assistant Collector concerned.

¶42

(5) ...... "

¶43

From the provision quoted herein above, it is clear that sub-section (4) is the material provision insofar as the issue in the instant writ petition is concerned. It is very categorical and relates to the entire Section 157-AA of the Act. It puts a total embargo on any sale-deed etc. being executed without the prior permission of the Collector.

¶44

The submission that permission is required for a sale only in favour of a non Scheduled Caste person is also entirely misconceived. Section 157-AA of the Act deals with land wherein a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste becomes a bhumidhar with transferable rights of land allotted to him after he has remained in possession for a period of ten years, as provided under Section 131-B of the Act.

¶45

Moreover this Section, 157-AA of the Act permits transfers between two persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes only. The only exception carved out by subsection (3) of this Section is that if transferee belonging to a Schedule Caste is not available. Then a transfer in favour of a member of a Scheduled tribe may be permitted in accordance with the conditions and order of preference specified in the section itself. Even otherwise, the section provides for various categories of persons who are entitled to purchase the land in the order of preference given. A person in a higher category shall have preference over a person in the lower category mentioned.

¶46

In such a view of the matter, I do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the crucial provision, namely, subsection (4) was evidently not pointed out to the court when the judgment in the case of Ramey (supra) was rendered. The said judgment having failed to notice the crucial sub-section (4), must therefore, be held to be per incurium Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of the said judgment in the case of Ramey (supra).

¶47

I consider it appropriate to reiterate and clarify that this Section does not provide for or permit a transfer by a Scheduled Caste in favour of a non-Scheduled Caste.

¶48

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore entirely misconceived. The section provides that various categories of persons, belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes only are entitled to purchase the land in the order of preference given.

¶49

It therefore necessarily follows that before a transfer is effected, it has to be determined as to the category under which the prospective vendee falls and whether another person of the Scheduled Caste, who is in a higher preferential category is available or not. This determination has to be made and duly recorded prior to the transfer itself.

¶50

It is in this context that sub-section (4) has been introduced which mandates that in case, a person is entitled to execute a sale-deed, etc. in favour of person(s) belonging to the Scheduled Caste, such transfer shall not be without prior permission of the Assistant Collector. If this is not the valid and correct interpretation of sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA of the Act sub-sections (1) and (2) would be rendered redundant."

¶51

5.2. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Dulari (Supra) are

¶52

reproduced herein-under :-

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail the aforesaid order and contends that in the present case since the transferor and the transferee both belong to the Scheduled Caste, the restriction under Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act was not attracted and no previous approval of the Assistant Collector was required prior to making of the transfer.

¶54

Submission is that there being no violation of the provisions of Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act the consequences enshrined under Section 167 of the ZA & LR Act would not follow and for the said reason the orders are erroneous and are liable to be set aside.

¶55

Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents submits that Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act provides for certain restrictions on transfer by the members of Scheduled Castes becoming bhumidhar under Section 131-B of the ZA & LR Act. He submits that as per the case pleaded in the petition, the transferor is stated to have become a bhumidhar by virtue of provisions contained under Section 131-B of the ZA & LR Act. It is pointed out that Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act contains an absolute bar on transfer being made by members of Scheduled Castes in favour of any person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste. It is further submitted that even in respect of transfer made by a member of Scheduled Caste to another member of the Scheduled Caste there are certain conditions specified under the section. Reference is made of sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act which provides that no transfer can be made without previous approval of the Assistant Collector.

¶56

The question which thus arises in the present case is as to whether in a case where the transferor and the transferee both are members of Scheduled Caste, would the restrictions contained under Section 157AA of the ZA & LR Act, be attracted.

¶57

For appreciating the rival contentions, the relevant statutory provisions may be adverted to.

¶58

Section 131-B, as inserted by U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 19952 with effect from January 14, 1995, was brought in with the main object to confer transferable rights on persons who were bhumidhars with non-transferable rights immediately before commencement of the aforementioned Amendment Act, 1995 and had been such bhumidhar for a period of ten years or more. Section 131-B referred to above is being extracted below:-

¶59

"131-B. Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to become bhumidhar with transferable rights after ten years.--(1) Every person who was a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and had been such bhumidhar for a period of ten years or more, shall become

¶60

a bhumidhar with transferable rights on such commencement.

¶61

(2) Every person who is a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights on the commencement referred to in sub-section (1) or becomes a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights after such commencement, shall become bhumidhar with transferable rights on the expiry of period of ten years from his becoming a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.

¶62

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, if a person, after becoming a bhumidhar with transferable rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), transfers the land by way of sale, he shall become ineligible for a lease of any land vested in Gaon Sabha or the State Government or of surplus land as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960."

¶63

Section 157-A provides for certain restrictions on transfer of land by members of scheduled castes. It provides that a bhumidhar or asami belonging to a scheduled caste shall have no right to transfer any land by sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person who does not belong to such a caste except with the previous approval of the Collector. The restrictions imposed on the bhumidhar or asami belonging to a scheduled caste shall be without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157 of the Act.

¶64

Section 157-AA was inserted in terms of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997 (U.P. Act No.9 of 1997) with effect from May 23, 1997 providing for restrictions on transfer by members of scheduled castes becoming bhumidhar under Section 131-B.

¶65

Section 157-AA, as inserted by the aforementioned Amending Act, is being reproduced below:-

¶66

"157-AA. Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131-B.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A, and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference :--

¶67

(a) landless agricultural labourer;

¶68

(b) marginal farmer;

¶69

(c) small farmer; and

¶70

(d) a person other than a person referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c).

¶71

(2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in clause (c) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in clause (d) of the said subsection in the same order of preference :--

¶72

(a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate;

¶73

(b) secondly, if no person referred to in clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate;

¶74

(c) thirdly, if no person referred to in clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate.

¶75

(3) If no person referred to in sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in sub-sections (1) and (2).

¶76

(4) No transfer under this sections shall be made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned.

¶77

(5) A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour."

¶78

Section 157-AA provides that no person belonging to scheduled caste having become a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a scheduled caste and the same shall be in the order of preference as contained sub-section (1) of the said section.

¶79

The provisions contained under Section 157-A and Section 157AA both provide for restrictions on transfer of land by members of scheduled castes, but with a clear distinction. In terms of Section 157A no bhumidhar or asami belonging to a scheduled caste can transfer the land to a person not belonging to a scheduled caste except with the previous approval of the Collector whereas under Section 157-AA the restriction is to the effect that a person belonging to a scheduled caste having become a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section

¶80

131-B shall have no right to transfer the land by sale or otherwise to any person other than a person belonging to a scheduled caste. The transfer under Section 157-AA would be permissible only to persons belonging to scheduled castes in the order of preference as prescribed under sub-section (1). The restriction on a scheduled caste with regard to the transfer of land in favour of a person who does not belong to a scheduled caste under Section 157-AA is thus absolute and such transfer is not permissible in any contingency. The restriction herein is more stringent since the land in question is a lease land and grant of agricultural lease contemplated under the ZA & LR Act is for specified object and purpose.

¶81

The language of sub-section (1) of Section 157-AA is such that even in case of a member of a scheduled caste acquiring transferable rights of a bhumidhar under Section 131-B who is desirous to transfer such land to another person belonging to the scheduled caste by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease the right to transfer is not absolute and the transfer is permissible only in accordance with the preferences specified therein.

¶82

Sub-section (4) provides for a restraint whereunder no transfer under Section 157-AA is permissible without the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. The language of sub-section (4) is expressed in wide terms and it covers all transfers which are contemplated under Section 157-AA, including a transfer which is to be made by a scheduled caste in favour of a scheduled caste also.

¶83

The restrictions provided for under Section 157-AA were made subject to a further condition with the insertion of sub-section (5), in Section 157-AA of the ZA & LR Act in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2002 (U.P. Act No.11 of 2002) with effect from June 21, 2002. Sub-section (5), referred to above, is being extracted below:-

¶84

"(5) A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour.

¶85

In terms of Section 166 of ZA & LR Act, transfers made in contravention of the Act are to be held to be void. The consequences of such void transfers are provided for under Section 167. For ease of reference Sections 166 and 167 are being extracted below:-

¶86

"166. Transfer made in contravention of the Act to be void.--Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be void.

¶87

Consequences of void transfers. --(1) The following consequences shall ensue in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely--

¶88

(a) the subject-matter of transfer shall with effect from the date of transfer, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances;

¶89

(b) the trees, crops and wells existing on the land on the date of transfer shall, with effect from the said date, be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances;

¶90

(c) the transferee may remove other moveable property or the materials of any immovable property existing on such land on the date of transfer within such time as may be prescribed.

¶91

(2) Where any land or other property has vested in the State Government under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the Collector to take over possession over such land or other property and to direct that any person occupying such land or property be evicted therefrom. For the purposes of taking over such possession or evicting such unauthorised occupants, the Collector may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary."

¶92

This Court may take notice of the fact that the ZA & LR Act was enacted to provide for abolition of the zamindari system which involved intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the State and for acquisition of their rights, title and interests and to reform the law relating to land tenure. The enforcement of the ZA & LR Act was with a view to simplify land tenure and bring about other consequent reforms to fulfill the needs of an egalitarian society. The abolition of the system of intermediaries between the State and the cultivators and the simplification of land tenure was aimed at paving way for distribution of land to the weaker sections of society according to the mandate of the Constitution of India3.

¶93

In a primarily agrarian economy where land continues to be the pivotal to both income and employment around which socio-economic privileges and deprivations revolve land reforms are seen as one of the principal instruments for creation of an egalitarian rural society in tune with the socialistic spirit, as provided in the Preamble and under Part IV of the Constitution. It has also been included in the Ninth Schedule so as to ensure speedy and unhindered implementation of various legislative measures.

¶94

The restrictions provided for the transfer of land by scheduled castes under Section 157-AA have been introduced in order to address the difficulties faced by members of scheduled castes and to protect their rights with regard to the use and control of land through land reforms by taking appropriate legislative measures.

¶95

The restrictions provided under Section 157-AA are founded on a reasonable basis inasmuch as these restrictions are in respect of a person belonging to a scheduled caste who has become a bhumidhar with transferable rights in terms of the provisions contained under Section 131-B. It is for the purpose of protecting the rights of members of the scheduled castes that the transfer under Section 157AA is permissible only to a person belonging to a scheduled caste and that too in the order of preference as prescribed under sub-section (1) thereof whereunder the said transfer is to be in an order of preference

¶96

being made firstly to a landless agricultural labourer, thereafter to a marginal farmer, a small farmer and only subsequent thereto to others. The aforementioned preferential order of transfer is further subject to the conditions under sub-section (2).

¶97

Sub-section (4) which is couched in a mandatory form contains an injunction against any transfer without the previous approval of the Assistant Collector. The language of sub-section (4) is in wide terms and it encompasses all transfers under Section 157-AA including a transfer by a member of scheduled caste in favour of another member of scheduled caste also. Sub-section (4) refers to "transfer under this section", and therefore, it clearly embraces in itself all transfers which are contemplated in terms of Section 157-AA.

¶98

The issue as to whether a transfer made by a leaseholder who belongs to a scheduled caste in favour of a person who also belongs to a scheduled caste would require the permission of the Assistant Collector was taken up in the case of Man Singh Vs. Commissioner, Bareilly Mandal & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) AWC 1998 (All) and upon considering the provisions contained under Section 157-AA it was stated as follows:-

¶99

"5. ...Section 157-AA contains a clear restriction that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste who have become bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have no right to transfer to any person other than person belonging to Scheduled Caste. The transfer under Section 157-AA is permissible only to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes in the order of preference as prescribed in Sub-section (1). Thus, Scheduled Caste cannot transfer the land in favour of a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste in any contingency. Further, this restriction is on reasonable basis since land which has been contemplated under Section 157-AA is a land which is allotted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. The restriction is more stringent in this sub-section since the land is lease land and grant of agricultural lease is contemplated under the Act for the specified object and purpose. Much emphasis has been laid down by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sub-section (1) of Section 157-AA will not apply when transfer is in favour of Scheduled Caste. Sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA contains an injunction to the effect that no transfer under this section shall be made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. Sub-section (4) is in a very wide terms when it refers to "transfer under this section". This clearly means that it embraces itself all the transfers which are contemplated in Section 157-AA. Thus, even if the transfer is by a Scheduled Caste in favour of a Scheduled Caste, it is fully covered by the restrictions contained under Sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA. In case, the interpretation as put by learned Counsel for the petitioner to Sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA is accepted, then the restrictions put under this Sub-section will be meaningless and redundant. There is valid reason for requiring previous permission of the

¶100

Assistant Collector. The reason which is deciphered from the scheme of section is, that even the transfer by a Bhumidhar belonging to Scheduled Caste to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste shall be in accordance with the preference mentioned in Sub-section (1). A Scheduled Caste who is bhumidhar with transferable right under Section 131-B has no free choice of transfer to any Scheduled Caste of his own choice. The order of preference given under Sub-section (1) has its own object and purpose. The object obviously is that if transfer is made, the said transfer shall first go to landless agricultural labourer and thereafter to marginal farmer. The reason obviously is that the land being a lease land, the rights of a lessee have to be regulated in a manner which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. Thus, the prior approval of the Assistant Collector is contemplated which is obviously to consider and decide as to whether permission can be accorded and the transfer which is sought, is in accordance with the Scheme of Subsection (1) of Section 157-AA. If no permission is required for a land to be transferred by Scheduled Caste to another Scheduled Caste, then there will be no stage of inquiry whether the transfer is in accordance with the preference given in Sub-section (1).

¶101

In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that permission is also required when a transfer is made by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste who has become bhumidhar with transferable right under Section 131-B in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. In the present case, the transfer was made without any such permission and the courts below have rightly taken the view that transfer is void and consequences under Section 167 of the Act shall follow..."

¶102

The purpose and object of the provision being to protect and promote the rights of the scheduled castes with regard to the control and use of land by bringing about land reforms through legislative measures, the provisions under Section 157-AA have to be read so as to subserve the intent and purpose of the enactment.

¶103

It is beyond question the duty of courts, in construing statutes to give effect to the intent of the law making power and to seek for that intent in every way. The object and interpretation of construction of statutes is to ascertain the meaning of the legislature and to ensure that the provisions are interpreted so as to subserve that intent. There is a general presumption that an enactment has to be given a purposive interpretation with a construction that best gives effect to the purpose of the enactment.

¶104

Reference may be had to the judgment in R (on the application of Quintavalle) Vs. Secretary of State for Health reported in (2003) UKHL 13, (2003) 2 AC 687, (2003) 2 ALL ER 113 (UK House of Lords), for the proposition that in construing an enactment effort should be made to give effect to the legislative purpose. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:-

¶105

"8. The basic task of the Court is to ascertain and give effect to the true meaning of what Parliament has said in the enactment to be construed. ... Every statute other than a pure consolidating statute is, after all, enacted to make some change, or address some problem, or remove some blemish, or effect some improvement in the national life. The Court's task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament's purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.''

¶106

Similar observations were made in Stock Vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. reported in (1978) 1 WLR 231 (UK House of Lords), wherein it was held as follows:-

¶107

''Words and phrases of the English language have an extraordinary range of meaning. This has been a rich resource in English poetry (which makes fruitful use of the resonances, overtones and ambiguities), but it has a concomitant disadvantage in English law (which seeks unambiguous precision, with the aim that every citizen shall know, as exactly as possible, where he stands under the law). The first way says Lord Blackburn, of eliminating legally irrelevant meanings is to look to the statutory objective. This is the well-known canon of construction . . . which goes by the name of ''the rule in Heydon's Case'' (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7b. (Nowadays we speak of the ''purposive'' or ''functional'' construction of a statute.)''

¶108

The Court's function, in view of the foregoing discussion, would thus be to construe the words used in an enactment, so far as possible, in a way which best gives effect to the purpose of the enactment.

¶109

The ZA & LR Act having been enacted with the objective of bringing about reforms in the law relating to land tenure, and the provisions contained under Section 157-AA having been inserted with a view to ensure protection of the rights of the scheduled castes in consonance with creation of an egalitarian rural society which would be in tune with the socialistic spirit of the Constitution the provisions contained therein have to be interpreted in a beneficent way so as to subserve the object of the enactment rather than to negate it.

¶110

In construing a remedial statute like the one above, courts are required to give the terms of the statute the widest amplitude which its language would permit.

¶111

The principle of applying a liberal construction to a remedial legislation has been emphasised in the Construction of Statues by Crawford reported in The Construction of Statutes by Earl T. Crawford, pp 492-493 in the following terms:-

¶112

"...Remedial statutes, that is, those which supply defects, and abridge superfluities, in the former law, should be given a liberal construction, in order to effectuate the purposes of the legislature, or to advance the remedy intended, or to accomplish the object sought, and all

¶113

matters fairly within the scope of such a statute be included, even though outside the letter, if within its spirit or reason."

¶114

To a similar effect is the observation made by Blackstone in Construction and Interpretation of Laws reported in Construction and Interpretation of Laws by Blackstone, which is as under:-

¶115

"It may also be stated generally that the courts are more disposed to relax the severity of this rule (which is really a rule of strict construction) in the case of statutes obviously remedial in their nature or designed to effect a beneficent purpose."

¶116

In the context of beneficial construction as a principle of interpretation, it has been observed in Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes reported in Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition by P. St. J. Langan as follows:-

¶117

"...where they are faced with a choice between a wide meaning which caries out what appears to have been the object of the legislature more fully, and a narrow meaning which carries it out less fully or not at all, they will often choose the former. Beneficial construction is a tendency, rather than a rule."

¶118

The principle of applying a liberal construction to a beneficial legislation having a social welfare purpose was reiterated in the case of Allahabad Bank & Anr. Vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association reported in (2010) 2 SCC 44, and it was observed as follows:-

¶119

"16. ...Remedial statutes, in contradistinction to penal statutes, are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. Such welfare statutes always receive a liberal construction. They are required to be so construed so as to secure the relief contemplated by the statute. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that labour and welfare legislation have to be broadly and liberally construed having due regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Act with which we are concerned for the present is undoubtedly one such welfare oriented legislation meant to confer certain benefits upon the employees working in various establishments in the country."

¶120

Reference may also be had to the case of Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi & Ors. reported in (1986) 2 SCC 614, where purposive interpretation safeguarding the rights of have-nots was preferred to a literal construction in interpreting a welfare legislation, and it was held as follows:-

¶121

"11. ...the court has to evolve the concept of purposive interpretation which has found acceptance whenever a progressive social beneficial legislation is under review.

¶122

We share the view that where the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them. Plain words have to be accepted as such but where the intention of the legislature is not clear from the words or where two constructions are possible, it is the court's duty to discern the intention in the context of the background in which a particular Section is enacted. Once such an intention is ascertained the courts have necessarily to give the statute a purposeful or a functional interpretation. Now, it is trite to say that acts aimed at social amelioration giving benefits for the have-nots should receive liberal construction. It is always the duty of the court to give such a construction to a statute as would promote the purpose or object of the Act. A construction that promotes the purpose of the legislation should be preferred to a literal construction. A construction which would defeat the rights of the havenots and the underdog and which would lead to injustice should always be avoided..."

¶123

The aforementioned legal position with regard to ambit and scope of the restrictions on transfer by members of Scheduled Castes becoming bhumidhar under Section 131-B is contained under Section 157-AA has been considered in extenso in a recent judgement of this court in Surajmal vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (146) RD 560.

¶124

39. The restrictions contained under Section 157-AA and the requirement of the permission of the Assistant Collector in a case where transfer is sought to be made by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste having become a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B, in favour of a person who also belongs to a Scheduled Caste, having been held to be mandatory any transfer made in contravention thereof shall by virtue of the provisions contained under Section 166 be rendered void and the consequences of such a void transfer, as provided under Section 167, would ensue.

¶125

40. In the case at hand, the land in question having been transferred by a person who was a member of Scheduled Caste and had become a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B, to the petitioner no.1 herein, also a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, the restrictions contained under Section 157-AA would be fully attracted as also the provisions contained under sub-section (4) thereof whereunder no transfer under the section is permissible except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned.

¶126

41. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transferor and the transferee both being members of Scheduled Caste, the previous approval of the Assistant Collector was not required for the purpose, is thus without basis and cannot be accepted.

¶127

42. The rationale behind requiring the previous approval of the Assistant Collector for any transfer under Section 157-AA is not difficult to decipher since as per the terms of the scheme of the provision, even a transfer by a bhumidhar belonging to a scheduled caste to a person also belonging to a scheduled caste is to be in accord with the order of preference under sub-section (1).

¶128

43. It therefore follows that a member of a scheduled caste who has obtained the status of a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B also does not have a free choice to transfer the land to any member of the scheduled caste. The transfer which is permissible is to be as per the preferences prescribed. The order of preference under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) are clearly to subserve the purpose of the legislative enactment which is for furtherance of the objective of land reforms and to protect the vulnerable section of the society from injustice and exploitation.

¶129

44. The prior approval of the Assistant Collector as required under sub-section (4) is thus contemplated so as to ensure that the permission which is sought is in accord with the scheme of the provision under the Section 157-AA and as per the order of preference provided under sub-section (1).

¶130

45. The transfer of the land in question having admittedly being made without the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned, the same would be hit by provision contained under sub-section (4) of Section 157-AA and such transfer being in contravention of the section, the same was rendered void by virtue of the mandate under Section 166 and the necessary consequences under Section 167 were liable to follow."

¶131

The Hon'ble Apex Court, on the subject matter of the instant case, in the case of Kesho Devi vs. Commissioner and others, Special Leave to Appeal C No.901/2020, Dated 31.03.2022, reported in MANU/SCOR/36123/2022, affirming the judgement passed by this Court in Kesho Devi (supra), observed as under:

¶132

"It is not disputed that before the alleged transaction has taken place in reference to the subject property in question, prior approval of the competent authority contemplated under sub- Section (4) of Section 157AA of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950(for short Act 1950A) has not been obtained.

¶133

In sequel thereto, no right could be conferred in favour of the petitioner in seeking any relief to retain the subject property in question. Merely because the petitioner claiming to be a member of Scheduled Caste would not obviate him from the rigors of compliance of the mandate of Section 157AA of the Act 1950.

¶134

After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no reason to interfere in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶135

The interim stay granted by this Court by an order dated 08th January, 2020, automatically, stands vacated."

¶136