SIRAJUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application unders 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the ex -proprietor of Bhadra Zamindan which was an estate under Section 2(3) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act. On the abolition of proprietary rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, the Compensation Officer deter -mined the compensation payable to the Petitioner at Rs. 2,21,330 12 6. The compensation payable to the applicant under the Act and the rules contained in Schedule I of the Act is ten times the net income of the estate determined in accordance with the rules in Schedule f Under Rule 2(2)(c) the net income of an estate is required to be calculated by deducting from the gross income inter alia the amount constituting "the average of the income -tax paid in respect of the income received from big forest during the period of thirty agricultural years preceding the agricultural year in which the relevant date falls". In arriving at the "average of the income -tax" for the purpose of deduction, the Compensation Officer took into account the amount of super tax also paid by the Petitioner in the relevant thirty agricultural years. According to the Petitioner, the average of the income -tax paid by him during the material thirty years was only Rs. 3,760 -2 -9, that the average calculated by the Compensation Officer after including super tax was Rs. 7,070 -8 -0, that thus the net income of the estate was lowered by an amount of Rs, 3,310 -5 -3; and that consequently he was deprived of an amount of compensation equivalent to ten times the difference viz. Rs. 3,310 -5 -3.

(2.) THE Petitioner contends that the amount of super tax paid by him during the material thirty agricultural years was not "income -tax paid in respect of the income received from big forest" and it could not, therefore, be taken into account while calculating the average of the income -tax for deduction purposes. He, therefore, prays that a writ quashing the order of the Respondents dealing with this deduction be issued and an appropriate direction be given to them for computing the net income after making deduction under Rule 2(2)(c) only on account of the income -tax.

(3.) THERE is also another reason why the expression "the average of the income -tax paid" cannot be taken as including also the average of super tax paid. The Act and the rules are of confiscatory nature and provided for payment of compensation to the proprietors divested of their property. The provisions with regard to compensation must, therefore, be liberally construed and, in case of doubt, in favour of the ex -proprietors. The meaning of the terms 'income -tax' and 'super tax' as used in the Income -tax Act were well understood for several years long before the enactment of the M. F. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. If, therefore, being fully aware of the distinction and concept of super tax and income -tax the Legislature still chose to use the word 'income -tax' to the exclusion of 'super tax', it must be taken that it did not intend to make any deduction on account of super tax paid in the computation of the net income.