JUDGMENT M.C. Agarwal, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 7.4.1993, copy of which is Annexure-'14' to the writ petition passed by the Collector, Ghaziabad in case No. 3/87-88 under Section 154 read with Section 167 (2) of the U, P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Z.A. Act').
2. The provisions of Section 154. 166 and 167 of the Z.A. Act are asunder:
"154. Restriction on transfer by a bhumidhar.--(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no bhumidhar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to any person where the transferee shall, as a result of such sale or gift, become entitled to land which together with land, if any, held by his family will in the aggregate, exceed 5.0586 hectares (12.50 acres) in Uttar Pradesh.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any other law relating to the land tenures for the time being in force, the State Government may, by general or special order, authorise transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) if it is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered co-operative society or an institution established for a charitable purpose, which does not have land sufficient for its need or that the transfer is in the interest of general public."
"Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression 'family' shall mean the transferee, his or her wife or husband as the case may be and minor children, and where the transferee is a minor also his or her parents."
"166. Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be void."
"167. (1) The following consequences shall ensue in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166, namely-
(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 ;
(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 ;
(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.
(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."
3. Section 154 (1) of the Z. A. Act thus prohibits the transfer by a bhumidhar of any land to any other person where as a result of the transfer, the land held by the transferee will exceed 12.50 acres. By virtue of Section 166 such transfer shall be void and as a consequence under Section 167 such land shall be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and the Collector can take possession thereof.
4. The petitioner claimed to be a co-operative society admittedly holding more than 12.50 acres of land and it acquired various quantities of land from the respective tenure holders by various sale deeds during the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. The Collector initiated action against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the transfers of land be not treated as void and the land taken possession of in terms of Section 167 of the Z. A. Act. The petitioner appeared before the Collector. It was not in dispute that by virtue of the various purchases of land made by it the agricultural land held by it is in excess of 12.50 acres. Its contention, however, was that it is a co-operative farming society and, therefore, the provisions of Section 154 of the Z. A. Act were not applicable to it. Reliance was placed on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kasturi Sanyukt Sahkari Krishi Samiti Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1989 decided on 16th March. 1989. The Collector held that the judgment was not applicable because in that case, the co-operative society was of the nature mentioned in sub-clause (a) of Section 77 (1) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cooperative Act') in which the tenure holders had pooled their land while the present society was a co-operative society In which the members did not contribute any land and the entire agricultural land has been purchased by the society. He, therefore, held that the petitioner society was entitled to retain 12.50 acres of land mentioned in Schedule 'A' annexed to his order while the remaining land measuring 802 acres will be taken possession of by him as the same has vested in the State by virtue of Section 167. This land has been detailed in Schedule 'B' annexed to the impugned order dated 7.4.1993. The present writ petition is directed against the said order dated 7.4.1993.
5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
6. I have heard M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
7. The petitioner's case is that it is a co-operative society registered under Section 77 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act on 23.12.1991 and its operations lie in village Kakrala, Khabaspur, Sorkha, Salarpur, Bhuda, Gejha Tilaptabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri. District Ghaziabad. It claims that it owns and occupies 802 acres of land in the aforesaid villages and the total members of the petitioner's society are about 622. According to the petitioner, the share of each individual member of the society would thus come to 1.783 acres approximately. According to the petitioner. Section 154 of the Z. A. Act applies to a holding of an individual and not to a co-operative farming society registered under Section 77 of the Co-operative Act read with Rules 291 and 292 of the Rules framed thereunder. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is stated that the aim and object of the petitioner's society is to cultivate agricultural land through a cooperative farming society In order to have a more modern and scientific method of farming and thus the members had decided to purchase the land in the name of the petitioner's society with contribution of each and every member of the society instead of making a pool. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner society has about 622 members whose families are earning their livelihood through their holding in the petitioner society. It says that in pursuance of the notice it filed objections before the Collector relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kastri Sanyukt Sahkari Krishi Samitl Ltd. (supra) but the Collector has wrongly distinguished the same. Thus, the petitioner's case briefly stated is that it being a co-operative farming society the limitations of Section 154 of the Z. A. Act are not applicable to It.
8. In the counter-affidavit, this has been controverted and it is stated that the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Kasturi Sanyukt Sahkari Krishi Samitt Ltd., applies only to a society whose members have pooled their land to form a co-operative farming society.
9. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Act and Rules may be reproduced here :
U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965:
"77. Registration of Co-operative Farming Societies.--(1) Where any ten or more persons-
(a) holding bhumidhari or sirdari rights In land in a circle, and desiring to pool it; or
(b) intending together to obtain, in the name of the society land in circle, by purchase, lease or otherwise ; form a society with the object of Jointly using such land for any purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture, sericulture, or animal husbandry which includes piggery, pisciculture and poultry farming or for the development of any cottage industry subsidiary to any such purpose along with such purpose, such society (to be hereinafter called a 'co-operative farming society') may, If it conforms to the requirements of Section 7, and if the bulk of the operations on such land relating to the aforesaid purposes are to be performed by members of society, be registered under this Act as a co-operative society:
Provided that the Registrar may, having regard to the circumstances of any particular case, grant an exemption from the requirement of the land being in one circle and in the case of such exemption, any reference to a circle hereinafter shall be deemed to be reference to the circle In which land held by the members or desired to be obtained lies.
(2) The Registrar shall cause a copy of registration certificate and such other documents as may be prescribed, to be forwarded to the Collector for such action, if any, as may be prescribed."
"78. Certain requirements of registration.--An application for registration of farming society shall be accompanied by-
(a) extracts from the record-of-rights showing the total area with the recorded members of all fields which will be contributed to the society ;
(b) in the case of a society covered by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 77, only a description of the land intended to be obtained and the manner of obtaining it and the plans for developing and using the same;
(c) such other documents and particulars, as may be prescribed."
"79. Consequences of registration.--(1) When a co-operative farming society is registered under Section 77, all land in the circle held by a member, whether as bhumidhar or sirdar, other than land in possession of his asami, till such time as it is so held by the asanri, shall be deemed to have passed into the possession, control and management of the co-operative farming society, which shall thereupon hold such land in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and may use the same for any of the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 77 :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any land on which farm house has been built or to such land, no exceeding one-half of an acre in area, appurtenant to the farm house as the member, at the time applying for membership of the society, opts to reserve for his personal cultivation :
Provided further that where a member of a co-operative farming society has only a share in a Joint holding, his share in that holding shall not, unless all the co-sharers of that holding are members of society, be deemed to pass into the possession, control and management of the society, unless he gets his share partitioned or he is in separate possession of a part of that holding:
Provided also that nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that the interest of the bhumidhar or the sirdar fn the land contributed by him to the co-operative farming society has except as provided In Section 82, ceased to vest in him.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'land' shall not include groveland. or land held and used by the bhumtdhar or the sirdar for purposes connected with horticulture, sericulture or animal husbandry which includes piggery, pisciculture and poultry farming, or for the development of any cottage industry subsidiary to any such purpose, but shall include such land as is held by the bhumidhar or the sirdar for any of the aforesaid purposes if it also one of the purposes of the society.
(2) No member of a co-operative farming society shall, except as provided in sub-section (3), be entitled to make any disposition of any land contributed by him to the society.
(3) Every member of the co-operative farming society who is bhumidhar of any land contributed by him to the co-operative farming society may, subject to the provisions contained in Section 169 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, make a testamentary disposition of such land, and, with the permission of the co-operative farming society, any other disposition.
(4) Every member of co-operative farming society shall be entitled to such rights and privileges, be subject to such obligations and liabilities, and he bound to discharge such duties as may be conferred or imposed upon him. by or under this Act.
(5) All cesses, local rates, rent or land revenue payable by a member of co-operative farming society, in respect of the land held by the society under sub-section (1) may, as from the date of registration of the society, be recovered from it. Any amount so paid by the society on behalf of a member shall be recovered by it from that member.
(6) The provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act 1 of 1951), shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue to govern land and the holder thereof."
"81. Admission of new members.--(1) Any person who is a resident of the circle where a co-operative farming society has been formed or who intends to settle down in the circle or who cultivates land therein, may be admitted as a member thereof, upon such terms and conditions as may be laid down in the bye-laws of the society.
(2) A minor or a lunatic holding land in the circle as a bhumidhar or sirdar, may through his legal guardian or curator, as the case may be, be admitted as a member of a co-operative farming society in that circle and in such a case, the guardian or the curator may act on behalf of the minor or the lunatic as if he were the member himself.
(3) Where a person is admitted as a member of society on the condition of his contributing land to the society, any land held by him in the circle as a bhumidhar or sirdar, shall stand transferred to the possession, control and management of the society and the provision of Section 79 shall apply to him."
'82. Effect of cessation of membership.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules and the bye-laws, where a member who contributed land to the co-operative farming society ceases to be a member, he shall be given back the land contributed by him or, in the interests of compactness of the land left with the society or of the land being returned to the member, any other land of equivalent value belonging to the society or any other member whose written consent to such exchange has been obtained :
Provided that the society shall be entitled to reimburse itself from such member the cost of any improvement or operations effected by the society benefitting, or contributing to the helping in productions from, the land to be returned:
Provided further that if the land to be returned is subject to a mortgage made by the society under the provisions of Section 86, the society shall, before returning the land to the outgoing member, secure redemption of the land from the mortgagor on payment of proportionate amount of the mortgaged money by the society notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act IV of 1882):
Provided also that with the mutual consent of the society and the outgoing member such cash compensation as may be determined in the prescribed manner, be paid by the society in lieu of the land to such member.
(2) Any land received back under sub-section (1) by the outgoing member shall be held by him in the same right in which the land contributed by him to the society was held immediately before the cessation of his membership of the society, and the society or any other member, as the case may be, shall have the same rights in the land, if any, retained in exchange of the land given to the outgoing member under sub-section (1), as it or he had in the land so given anything to the contrary contained in Section 161 of the U. P. Zamtndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, notwithstanding.
(3) No member shall, on the cessation of his membership, be entitled to claim any part of the land or other property acquired in any manner by the co-operative farming society, but nothing herein shall affect his right to get the value or any share to which he may be entitled under this Act."
"67. Concessions and facilities for co-operative farming societies.--Without prejudice to any other concession admissible to co-operative societies in general under this Act, the co-operative farming societies shall be entitled to such other concessions, facilities and priorities as may be prescribed and these may, amongst others, include the following :
(a) reduction in land revenue ;
(b) reduction in irrigation charges, taxes by local bodies and sales tax on the purchases of diesel oil, petrol and mobil-oil, for agricultural purposes;
(c) priority in the grant of taqavi;
(d) priority in the construction of irrigation and other projects by the State Government;
(e) priority in the supply of water for irrigation, seeds, manures, fertilisers and other articles necessary for farm production ;
(f) priority in the marketing of farm produce."
"90. Provisions of Chapter to prevail over other law.--The provisions of this Chapter shall take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force."
P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 ;
'291. Without prejudice to the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 78 and in addition to the requirements laid down in the foregoing rules relating to the registration of a society, the application for registration of a co-operative farming society shall be accompanied by-
(a) an extract from the record of rights showing the total area with the recorded plot numbers of all land held by each of the applicants desiring to pool land under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 77;
(b) a communication in Form C.F. 1 in triplicate in connection with the registration of the society showing details of land to be pooled under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 77 ;
(c) two copies of a map of the farm of the proposed society indicating. the Khasra number of plots and the boundaries of the farm ; and
(d) any other documents and particulars as may be required by the Registrar."
"294. Where a co-operative farming society admits a new member after its registration, the society shall send to the Registrar in respect of such msmber-
(i) particulars required under Rule 291 (a); and
(ii) statement in triplicate in Form C.F. 1 (A) along with two authenticated copies of the resolution of the society admitting such member.
The Registrar shall send to the Collector one copy of the resolution and a statement of the member referred to in sub-clause (ii) of this rule for action as provided in Rule 293."
"295. Without prejudice to the provisions of other rules, every cooperative farming society shall, at the close of each co-operative year, submit to the Registrar, if so required by him, the following :
(a) details of the land contributed by members enrolled during the year and of the land otherwise obtained by the society during the year; and
(b) the latest map of the land held by the society."
'309. Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 15 of the bye-laws of a co-operative farming society shall provide for-
(i) the contribution of land, funds and other property by members, their valuation and adjustment;
(ii) the remuneration and wages to be paid to members working on the /arm of the society ;
(iii) the payment of expenses and other dues of the farm of the society ;
(iv) the distribution of the produce of the society ; and
(v) the conduct of the affairs and the working of the farm of the society."
10. As stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment in Kosturi's case, a copy of which has been placed in the paper book as Annexure-'8'. The judgment shows that the co-operative farming society in that case had 44 members and had in its possession some 292 acres ofiand. Similar proceeding for violation of Section 154 of the Z. A. Act were initiated against it and the society had come to this Court in the aforesaid writ petition challenging the initiation of the proceedings itself. The Court found that it was a society formed by agriculturists holding agricultural land who had pooled the disputed land to be cultivated by a co-operative society, it was held that such land did not stand transferred to the co-operative society and the tenure holders continued to be the owners thereof and, therefore, there was no violation of Section 154. The notices issued by the Collector were, accordingly, quashed. Referring to the effect of Section 79 of the Co-operative Act, the Division Bench observed as under:
"A reading of Section 79 of the Act will clearly show that after the society is registered, the land is still held by the individual members and ft is only the possession, control and management that will pass on to the Co-operative Farming Society for better management and more profitable farming. The third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 79 also is a clear pointer to the fact that the Interest of the bhumidhars shall not cease to vest in him and the individual member shall still continue to be the owner of the land which they have pooled in the society. To the same effect are sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 79 of the Act and thus a reading of Section 79 makes it clear beyond any doubt that the ownership of land still continues with the individual members who have pooled their land and it is only the possession, control and management which has passed to the society."
Then at another place it was observed as under:
"A perusal of the provisions contained in Chapter XX of the Act will show that it was framed with the object of constituting co-operative farming societies for the purpose of collective farming. If the limit of 12.50 acres land is placed even on the land standing in the name of the co-operative society then it will cut at the very root of the concept of co-operative farming which has been introduced with a laudable object of helping the small tenure-holders to do collective farming by pooling together their land."
Thus, the controversy in Kasturi's case was whether pooling of their agricultural holdings by tenure-holders to form a co-operative housing society would attract Section 154 of the Z. A. Act and the Division Bench held that in such a case there was no violation of Section 154.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the Division Bench has held that Section 154 would not be attracted even to a society contemplated by Section 77 (1) (b) of the Co-operative Act, i.e., a society whose members do not pool or contribute any land belonging to them but the society acquires land on its own. He referred to the discussion where the Division Bench has referred to the family in Section 154 (1). It was contended before the Division Bench that prescription of the condition that the aggregate of the land held by the tenure-holder and his family does not exceed 12.50 acres indicates that this provision applied to natural persons who alone could have a family. A perusal of the judgment would show that the Division Bench has only referred to a Government notification which required that a co-operative farming society must have a minimum of 50 acres of Irrigated land or a minimum of 75 acres of un-irrigated land and no upper limit has been prescribed on the land standing in the name of the co-operative society. The Division Bench also observed that it is open, to the members of the society to acquire more land in the name of the society and the ownership of the land will continue with the members of the society in proportion to the land pooled by them. All such observations have been made only to re-inforce the conclusion that Section 154 of the Act does not apply to a case where the members of a co-operative society have merely pooled together their agricultural holdings to constitute a co-operative housing society. The Division Bench unequivocally held that in such a case, there is no transfer of ownership of the land which continues to remain vested in the tenure-holder a member of the society as a bhumidhar or sirdar as the case may be. The question whether a co-operative society of the nature referred in Section 77 (1) (b) can acquire more than 12.50 acres of land and there would be no violation of Section 154 was not involved in that case and, therefore, any observations made therein to that effect are per incurium and obiter. It is settled law that a Judgment is a precedent for what it actually decides and every word In a judgment of a Hfgh Court cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Obiter of the High Court is not binding. Reliance was also placed on another Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15176 of 1989 Kendriya Swastha Mantralaya Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. Collector and another, decided on 22.4.1997, in which following the judgment In Kasruri's case. It was held that Section 154 was not attracted in case of a housing society. This is a short judgment in which the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Kosturt's cose it has held that Section 154 does not apply to a co-operative society was accepted because the learned standing counsel did not controvert the argument. A perusal of this judgment would show that the question as to what was decided in Kasturi's case was not effectively examined and the case proceeded on some sort of a concession or no contest made by the standing counsel. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 20518 of 1992, Lokpriya Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 6th May. 1997, in which too the petitioner's counsel relied upon Kosturt's cose. This too is a brief judgment which shows that In this case too, there seems to have been opposition from the standing counsel and there seems to have been a mis-representation or mis-conception about the ratio laid down by this Court in Kosturi's case. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 6th May. 1997 states that in Kosfuri's case, it was held that "Section 154 applies only to the land held by individual tenure-holders and not to the land standing in the name of the society". The above quotation has been stated in the Judgment in inverted commas to indicate as if the Division Bench so stated. A copy of the judgment dated 16.8.1989 forms part of the paper book of the writ petition as Annexure-'8' and having scanned through the same again and again, I am unable to find any such observation therein.
12. The real ratio of Kosfuri's case is not that Section 154 does not apply to a co-operative society. The ratio is that it is not attracted in any case, not even of an Individual, if there is no transfer of the tenancy rights. This section will be applicable to even a co-operative society registered under the scheme contemplated by Section 77 (1) (a) if it later acquires bhumidhari or sirdart rights by transfer in its own name. If it is a mere cultivatory arrangement without transfer of tenancy rights, this provision cannot be attracted whether the cultivator is an Individual, trust, co-operative society or a spciety registered under the Societies Registration Act, a Company or any other artificial person and whatever be the extent of land cultivated.
13. Section 77 (1) of the Co-operative Act refers two types of societies. Clause (a) deals with a society in which the tenure-holders form a co-operative society by pooling their land. The third proviso to Section 79 states that by virtue of the registration of the society, the interest of the bhumidhor or the sirdar in the land contributed by him to the co-operative farming society shall not cease to vest in him. This unequivocally means that a member of a co-operative society of the nature referred to In Section 77 (1) (a) continues to remain the owner of his holdings and, therefore, Section 154 would not be attracted at all. This is what has been highlighted by a Division Bench of this Court in Kosturi's case by specifically standing that it is only the possession, control and management that will pass on to the co-operative society.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the provision in Section 154 regarding the aggregation of the land held by a tenure-holder and his family indicates that this section is applicable in the case of natural persons who alone can have a family. This contention, in my view, has no force. Section 154 applies to all persons. The word 'persons' has been defined in Section 4 (33) of the U. P. General Clauses Act to include any company or association or body of Individuals, whether incorporated or not. The word 'person' in Section 154 takes in its scope natural person as well as legal person. If it is taken that this section applies only to natural person, then the whole purpose of the provision would be frustrated because people can avoid the legal restriction by resorting to the methodology of creating a trust or a co-operative or other society or a company or setting up a deity.
15. It is important to note that the Legislature was alive to a situation where a co-operative society, etc., may need more land. Therefore, in sub-section (2) of Section 154, specific provision has been made that the State Government may, by general or special order, authorise transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) if it is of the opinion that such transfer is in favour of a registered co-operative society or an institution established for a charitable purpose, which does not have land sufficient for its need or that the transfer is in the interest of general public. This unequivocally indicates that institutions like a co-operative society or other Institution for a charitable purpose were in contemplation of the Legislature and, therefore, specific power has been conferred on the Government to permit transfer in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1) in their favour. If it is held that Section 154 applies only to individuals, i.e., natural persons, then sub-section (2) of Section 154 would become redundant and it is settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the Legislature cannot be presumed to have made unnecessary and redundant provisions.
16. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that Section 154 applies to a co-operative society the members of which did not pool their land and which acquires land by itself after its registration as a society as in the case of the petitioner. I, therefore, hold that the Collector was right in distinguishing the ratio of Kasturi's case and holding that the acquisition of land by purchases by the petitioner society resulted in violation of Section 154 of the Z. A. Act and Inviting the consequences of Sections 166 and 167.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the policy of the Government was to develop co-operative movement and taking a view that a cooperative society could not hold more than 12.50 acres of land would defeat the purpose of forming a co-operative society. This argument is fallacious. The concept of co-operatives was developed to help the poor agriculturist labourers, landless agricultural labourers, artisans etc., to encourage them to form cooperative societies so that they can have better bargaining power and resources at their disposal. This is clearly Indicated In the provision of the Act. Section 77 (1) (a) referred to above is an instance of pooling of resources, A society can be registered under Section 77 (1) (a) or (1) (b) only if the bulk of the operations on the land relating to the purposes of agriculture or horticulture are to be performed by members of society. Section 87 deals with concessions and facilities that will be granted to a co-operative farming society. Section 81 (1) provides that any person who is a resident of the circle where a co-operative fanning society has been formed or who intends to settle down In the circle or who cultivates land therein, may be admitted as a member thereof. This clearly Indicates that a co-operative fanning society must consist of agriculturists living within the circle where the co-operative society has been formed. Rule 309 provides that the bye-laws of a co-operative fanning society shall provide infer alia for the remuneration and wages to be paid to members working on the farm of the society and the distribution of the produce of the society etc. These provisions clearly indicate that a co-operative fanning society has to be a society of agriculturist who will perform the bulk of the operations themselves. It is not permissible to form a co-operative farming society and get the cultivation or other operations conducted by outsiders as contractor or servant.
18. In the present case, the petitioner has appended a list of the members of the society as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition which is very revealing. It shows that the membership consists of persons from the whole of India from Jammu and Kashmir In the north, Madras in the South. Jaipur and Bombay in the West and Calcutta in the east of India. The majority of the members belonged to Delhi and New Delhi and the majority of them come from the posh colonies of Delhi like Babar Road. Green Park. Hauz Khas Enclave. Safdarjung Enclave. Lajpat Nagar, Friends Colony, etc. etc. Then the members come from other towns like Kanpur, Meerut, Hardwar. Moradabad. Dehradun. Murad Nagar. Ghaziabad. Lucknow, Calcutta. Bombay. Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir), Madras, Agra, Jullandhar, Jaipur. Mathura. Muzaffer Nagar, Rampur. Chandigarh, Bulandshahr. Bareilly, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), Allahaba3, Nagpur. Varanasi. Not only this at Serial No. 523 is a person from (Ghana) in West Africa, at Serial No. 529 is a person from Berks. U. K. and at Serial No. 527 is a person from Kuwait. The list includes the minor girls and boys, ladies and artificial persons like HUF. It is unimaginable that such diverse type of persons would come together to form a co-operative society to acquire land in Tehsll Dadri in the district of Ghaziabad. As stated above, the provisions of the Co-operative Act Indicate that the members should live in this circle where the society is formed. The list of members Annexure-'2' does not have even one name of any person who may be residing In the circle. There is no averment in the petition that they were agriculturists or agricultural labourers who needed to from a co-operative society for advancement of their economic Interest. There is no averment that they themselves carry on any of the agricultural operations for the purpose of which the society purports to have been formed. The Co-operative Act was certainly not enacted to advance this type of co-operative activity by the affluent to deprive the poorer agriculturists of their land by sheer use of money power. The U. P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act contain regulatory measures regarding acquisition and possession of agricultural land that is becoming scarce day by day. We are not living in the time of Laiesez Fairs when such activity could be said to be perfectly justified. The times had changed. We are living under the Constitution that promises to all citizen social, economic and political justice and the ownership and control of material resources of the community are to be so distributed as best to subserve common good. That is why regulatory measures have been taken to control the ownership, possession and use of agricultural land. These provisions cannot be allowed to be frustrated by mis-conceived attempt like this. The provisions of the Co-operative Act though they are clear in themselves have to be interpreted in harmony with the provisions of the Z. A. Act and it cannot be accepted that Section 154 would not apply to a co-operative society. A cooperative society that needs more land than 12.50 acres must apply for permission to the State Government which would examine the case and grant or refuse permission according to circumstance of each case.
19. For the above reasons, I find no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 24.11.1994 is vacated. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.