“8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that though a dwelling house erected on the land would amount to improvement in terms of sub-section (12) of Section 3 and improvement is allowed under Section 22 of the Act, subject, of course, to the provisions of Section 26 thereof, such construction must necessarily be for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, including pisciculture and poultry farming. In our opinion, the Act does not permit construction of a dwelling house or any other construction, on the whole of the land held by a Bhumidar or Asami . The dominant use of the land, even after improvements, must be for agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry. The construction of the house can be only incidental to the prescribed dominant use of the land. If no activity connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry is undertaken and the whole of the land is used solely for a residence, such use, in our opinion, does not amount to an improvement permitted by the Act and would render the Bhumidar or Asami , as the case may be, liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the land holder, as the case may be.”
