RAJA NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants owned extensive forest areas at Etawah, Bharthana and Auraiya in the district of Etawah. On October 28, 1944 the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring an area admeasuring over 6,000 acres therefrom for the purpose of preservation of existing tree growth, afforestation and control of erosion by means or regulation of grazing. By an award dated September 6, 1945 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 20,145-7-0 as compensation for the acquisition of the lands to the appellants. In a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation for the land, Rs. 10,000/- for buildings and Rs. 2,00,000/- for the trees standing in the forest. The learned District Judge, Mainpuri, came to the conclusion that income which accrued to the appellants from the acquired land by way of grazing charges amounted to Rs. 2,000/- per year and that 23 times of that amount would represent a fair compensation to the appellants as the market value of the land. The learned Judge valued the standing trees at Rs. 40,293-5-0 and awarded a total sum of Rs. 99,237-5-0 to the appellants. In First Appeal No. 473 of 1951 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court upheld the value of the land at Rs. 46,000/- but set aside the compensation awarded by the District Court for the value of trees. The High Court has granted to the appellants a certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the High Court was in error in refusing to award compensation to the appellants for the value of the trees standing in the forest, since the land has to be valued separately from the trees. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the definition of 'land' in Section 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act and on the provisions of Sec. 23 (1), firstly and secondly of the same Act. Having considered this contention in the light of these provisions and in the context of the various facts to which we will presently advert, it seems to us difficult to uphold it.

(3.) In the first place, the forest land which has been acquired was mostly situated in ravines caused by the erosive action of the rivers Kuari, Chambal and Jamuna. With a view to preventing erosion of the land, the Government of Uttar Pradesh embarked upon a scheme of afforestation of the land in pursuance of which agreements were entered into between the appellant and the Government in 1918 and 1923. By these agreements the Government became entitled to manage the forests as 'reserved forests.' These agreements were terminated subsequently and on October 27, 1934 a fresh agreement was arrived at between the appellants and the Secretary of State for India. That agreement was to remain in force for a period of 10 years and it was immediately on the expiry of that agreement that the land was acquired under the notification dated October 28, 1944. Under the agreement of 1934, an annual sum of Rs. 899/- only was payable by the Government to the appellants. The Government had to incur the entire expenditure, for protecting, preserving and managing the forest but it was entitled to collect and credit to itself the entire income accruing from the forest. The only right reserved to the appellants, apart from the annual payment of Rs. 899/-, was the right of shooting for himself, his family and friends, to take the grass growing on the land and to graze his cattle on the land.