Meaning of "building" under land reform law excluded a brick kiln pit, so the land vested in the State.

The meaning of "building" under section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, was construed in its ordinary sense because the Act did not define it. Although a structure need not always be roofed to qualify, section 9 saves only permanent structures of the kind contemplated by the statute from vesting. On the facts found, the brick kiln had no site, walls or roof and was only a pit dug in the ground with bricks on its sides. It therefore did not qualify as a building, and the land vested in the State from the date of vesting, defeating the claim for rent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the brick kiln leased to the appellant was a "building" within the meaning of section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, so as to prevent vesting of the land in the State and sustain the respondents' claim for rent.

Analysis: The word "building" was not defined in the Act and was therefore construed in its ordinary grammatical sense. The relevant scheme of sections 4 and 6 provided for vesting of estates in the State, while section 9 saved wells, trees in abadi, and buildings from vesting. A structure could qualify as a building even if not roofed, but the determination depended on the nature of the structure and the facts of each case. On the findings recorded, the brick kiln had no site, no walls, no roof, and was only a pit dug in the ground with bricks on its sides. It was not a permanent structure of the kind contemplated by section 9.

Conclusion: The brick kiln was not a "building" within section 9. The plots, together with the kiln, vested in the State from the date of vesting, and the respondents were not entitled to recover rent for the period claimed.

---