HARBANS KUMARI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals by certificates under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question relating to the interpretation of Section 39 (1) (e) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) As the facts giving rise to these appeals are identical, it shall suffice to narrate the facts of the case culminating in Appeal No. 171 of 1969. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, the late Jodha Mal, owned several private forests in the State of U. P. including the one consisting of three compartments comprising a total area of 484.57 acres in village Rajiwala Attick Farm, Mahal Sansar in District Dehradun. On the vesting of the said forest in the State of U. P. by virtue of Section 4 of the Act, the question arose about the assessment and payment, of compensation therefor to the heirs of the intermediary. On service of draft compensation roll prepared under Section 40 of the Act, each one of the appellants filed separate objections in regard thereto before the Compensation Officer, Dehradun, who disposed of the same by his order dated August 31, 1953 holding that the average annual income from the said forest which could be taken into consideration while computing its compensation was Rs. 4,551 as disclosed by the appellants' accounts for a period of 22 years preceding the date of vesting in terms of clause (i) of Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act and Rs. 450 was its annual yield on the date of vesting as per terms of clause (ii) of Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act. Dividing the sum total of these two figures by 2, the Compensation Officer. held that Rs. 5,001 (sic) was the annual income from the aforesaid forest to the intermediaries. Aggrieved by the computation of compensation, the respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 50 of the Act. The appellants also filed cross-appeal claiming that the average annual income as assessed by the Compensation Officer was too low. Being of the view that while computing the average annual income from the forest, both the results arrived at by working both the clauses of Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act had to be looked into and considered and it had to be objectively decided as to what the average annual income from the forest would be, the High Court held that Rs. 2,000 and not Rs. 450 was the income under clause (ii) of Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act. On the aforesaid basis, the High Court came to the conclusion that Rs. 3,000 and not Rs. 5,001 was the average annual income on the basis of which gross assets had to be calculated in computation of compensation in respect of the aforesaid forest. The High Court by its judgment and decree dated December 10, 1963, disposed of the appeal and the cross-appeal in the manner indicated above. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, the appellants have come up in appeal to this Court. The respondent has also filed objections with regard to the item of Rs. 2,000.

(3.) Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a very short point. Assailing the method adopted by the High Court in computing the compensation, he has urged that the High Court has missed the real purport and meaning of the provisions relating to the computation of compensation and that the relevant portion of Section 39 of the Act did not authorise the High Court to calculate the compensation by taking a mean of the aforesaid two figures. He has further urged that having worked out the average annual income according to the method indicated in clause (i) of S. 39 (1) (e) of the Act, the High Court was not required to work out the annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting. We regret, we cannot accede to this contention. Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act provides as follows: