Ranga Reddi vs The State of Hyderabad and Another

The decision of this Writ application depends upon the interpretation of the term ''arable land'' in Section 30 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act as amended by Section 14 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition (Amendment) Regulation (No. LIX of 1358 F.).

The case has been thoroughly and ably argued by the Petitioner in person and by Mr. N Sastri, the learned Government Pleader and we are indebted to them for the assistance they rendered us.

The broad facts of the case are that the Petitioner, B. Rangareddi, has filed an application for a Writ of Certiorari against the State of Hyderabad and the Collector of Hyderabad District, stating that the Collector is compul-sorily acquiring about three acres and eight guntas of his land on which there is guinea grass plantation. It appears that another strip of the same land has already been acquired permanently for laying underground drainage pipes and in order to dig the area and lay down the drainage pipes, the Government has found it necessary to occupy temporarily the land, which is situated on either side of. the strip already acquired. The Government desire to temporarily acquire; the strip for a period of three months u/s 30 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner contends that a notification for the acquisition of the land in dispute was issued and the Collector informed the Petitioner by a notice dated 16-5-1951, on which the Petitioner protested that the land cannot be temporarily acquired, as it was neither ''waste'' nor ''arable land''; on the contrary perennial guinea-grass, was being grown on it and such a land cannot be acquired u/s 30 of the Act.

The Petitioner complains that despite his representation, the Government and the. Collector were insisting on taking possession of the lands and he has, therefore, prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order against them. His main contention is that there is no jurisdiction u/s 30 of the Act to temporarily acquire and occupy the land in dispute. The Government by their counter dated 3-10-1951 have stated that they can temporarily acquire the land in question whether it contains guineagrass or any other grass and that the land so covered is ''arable land'' and the contention of the Petitioner that the land so covered by the guinea-grass should be acquired permanently and not temporarily is not correct. (After discussing the documentary evidence, the judgment proceeded:) From the aforesaid documents, it is clear that the guinea-grass plantation on the land in dispute is a perennial crop and the question for decision is whether land earing such perennial crop can be temporarily acquired u/s 30 of the Act.

It is conceded that the disputed land is not ''waste'' land and we have to decide whether it is ''arable land''. The meaning of the term ''arable'' as given in the New Standard Dictionary, Volume I, page 143 is: ''Land fit for cultivation''. ''Arable land'' is described as opposed to pastural or woodland and its antonyms as given in the Dictionary are ''barren, craggy, precipitous, rocky or waste land''. Universal Dictionary of English language, edited by Cecil Wyld, defines the word ''arable'' at page 48 as a derivative of the Latin word ''ARATRUM'' meaning plough. ''Arable land'' will be land which is ''usually ploughed''. In our opinion ''arable land'' is land which can be profitably ploughed. Mr. Sastri, the learned Government pleader, argues that the very fact that there is guinea-grass plantation proves that the land is, in its nature, such that it could have been ploughed. We agree with him so far that prior to the cultivation of the guinea-grass plantation the land could have been regarded as ''arable'' and it could have been ploughed for the purpose of raising a crop of corn or other seasonal crop; but after the plantation of the guinea-grass, the land cannot be termed as ''arable land''. It is not now of such a nature that it could be tilled or ploughed for purposes of deriving benefit. If the plough is to be used in the guinea-grass plantation, the result will be destruction of the plantation and no prudent person would use the plough upon such a land. We are, therefore, clear in our mind that the land in dispute in its present state is not ''arable land''. Mr. Sastri vehemently argued that any land which is not rocky or stony must be regarded as arable, though there may be a permanent building on the same, and that it can be temporarily acquired u/s 30 of the Act. We are unable to agree with this contention. For the purpose of the application of Section 30 of the Act, the land in question must be of such a nature that in its present or existing state it could be profitably used for cultivation. Such is not the present state of the land in dispute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the disputed land is not ''arable land'' and cannot be temporarily acquired u/s 30 of the Act.

The Petitioner, B. Rangareddi, has cited several executive instructions issued by the various state governments under the Land Acquisition Act. The instructions issued by the Government of Hyderabad at page 5 reveal that the term ''arable land'' includes land cultivated with annual or seasonal crops. The suggestion is that cultivable land, which is cultivated with perennial plantation or plantation which is not of the nature of an annual or seasonal crop, is not ''arable land''. The instructions issued by the Government of Bengal show that certain formalities are to be observed for temporary acquisition of land. (Vide page 89). It is mentioned therein that u/s 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, corresponding to Section 30 of the Act, temporary possession can only be taken of waste or arable lands which do not include lands occupied by roads, tanks, buildings, gardens, orchards etc. Similar instructions are to be found in the Land Acquisition Manual of 1894 at page 129 wherein it is stated that only waste or arable land can be acquired for temporary occupation buildings cannot be acquired. See also Manual of Land Acquisition of the State of Bombay, page 111, wherein it is stated that ''arable or waste land'' probably does not cover roads or tanks or any land which is not in use and ''certainly not gardens''. Mr. Sastri has argued that these executive, instructions should not be given the force of law while interpreting statutory law. We agree with him that the interpretation contained in those instructions is not binding upon us; but we can certainly take help from them for arriving at. proper interpretation of the word ''arable land''. In Rowland Burrow''s Law Dictionary, Vol. I page 23 ''arable land'' has been described as land fit for cultivation and which will grow crops of grain.

In conclusion, we hold that the land in dispute containing guinea grass plantation is not ''arable land'' and the Government have no jurisdiction to temporarily acquire the same u/s 30 of the Act.

We, therefore, direct the Respondents not to take possession of the land in. dispute u/s 30 of the Act and issue a writ that their decision to use Section 30 of the Act for the temporary acquisition of the land in dispute is ''ultra vires''.