Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ment or the accomplishment of the objects of the said provisions. In one sense, the land in question does serve the purpose of the Improvement scheme, because the betterment fee which is levied on it swells the funds of the Board and the funds are utilised by the Board for the purposes of carrying out the scheme; but the requirement of the land for carrying out the provisions of the Improvement Act which alone can invoke s. 30(c), cannot be said to be satisfied by this indirect connection between the land and the general purpose of the Improvement Act. There is one more aspect of this problem which is not irrelevant. Betterment fee is levied against a land, because its value is increased as a result of the improvement scheme, and so, s. 78A authorises the Board to levy betterment fee presumably on the ground that the Board is justified in recouping itself by such levy in respect of unearned increment in the value of the land of which the land-holder gets a benefit. If the land-holder pays betterment fee for such unearned increment in the value of the land, he may apply under s. 25 of the Act for enhancing the rent payable by the thika tenants to him. But there appears to be no reason why a landlord, the value of whose land has increased by the improvement scheme introduced in the area in which his land is situated, should get the additional benefit of exemption from the application of the provisions of the Act which give protection to the tenants. Having carefully considered the question of construing s.30(c), we have come to the conclusion that the words used in s. 30(c) do not justify the conclusion that a private landholder is intended to be equated with Government or with the other special bodies or authorities whose lands are exempted from the operation of the Act by s. 30. We do not think that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the Act should cease to apply to all lands which ore comprised in the scheme, because such a provision would appear to be inconsistent with the categories of cases covered by clauses (a) & (b) of s. 30. Besides, if that was the intention of the Legislature in enacting s. 30(c), it would have been easy for the Legislature to say that lands comprised in the improvement schemes should be exempted from the application of the Act. Section 30, as we already emphasised, provides for an exception to the application of the beneficent provisions of the Act, and it would, we think. not be unreasonable to bold that even if s. 30(c) is reasonably capable of the construction for which Mr. Pathak contends, we should prefer the alternative construction which is also reasonably possible. In construing the provisions which provide for exceptions to the applicability of beneficent legislation, if two constructions are reasonably possible, the Court would be justified in preferring that construction which helps to carry out the beneficent purpose of the Act and does not unduly expand the area or the scope of the exception. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Court of Appeal was in error in reversing the conclusion of the trial Judge that the present suits filed on the original side of the Calcutta High Court were incompetent.