Held, the word 'held' means possession of legal and does not require actual connected occupation, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khadhar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; AIR 1995 SC 142.
The word 'held' in s. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 means 'lawfully held'. Judicial propriety requires that if a bench of a High Court is unable to agree with the decision already rendered by another co-ordinate bench of the same High Court, the question should be referred to a larger bench, Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux, AIR 1970 SC 1880 (1884): (1969) 2 SCC 481: (1970) 2 SCR 10.
The expression 'held' occurring in s. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be construed to mean 'lawfully held'. Kailash Rai v. Jai Jai Ram, AIR 1973 SC 893 (897): (1973) 1 SCC 527: (1973) 3 SCR 411 [U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (1 of 1951), s. 9]
In the Unabridged Edition of The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the word 'hold' has been inter alia stated to mean 'to have the ownership or use of: keep as one's own. ' In The Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt (1959 Edition), the word 'hold' has been interpreted as meaning 'to have as tenant'.
In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Fourth Edition), the distinction between holding and occupation is sought to be brought out by quoting the following observations by Littledale, J. in R. v. Ditcheat': In Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Second Edition), it is stated that in legal parlance, the word 'held' means to possess by 'legal title. Relying upon this connotation, the Supreme Court in Budhan Sigh v. Nabi Bux, AIR 1970 SC 1880 interpreted the word 'held' in s. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as meaning possession by legal title, State of U.P. v. Smt. Sarjoo Devi, AIR 1977 SC 2196: (1977) 4 SCC 2: (1978) 1 SCR 181.
According to Oxford Dictionary 'held' means: to possess; to be the owner or holder or tenant of; keep possession of; occupy. Thus, 'held' connotes both ownership as well as possession. And in the context of the definition it is not possible to interpret the term 'held' only in the sense of possession, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Ashrafuddin, AIR 1982 SC 913 (915): (1982) 2 SCC 1: (1982) 3 SCR 482. [A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agriculturist-Holdings Act (10 of 1973), s. 3(1)]