LexDISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE JOWAI versus DWET SINGH RYMBAI ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE JOWAI
v.
DWET SINGH RYMBAI ETC.
AUGUST 14, 1986
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Manage-
ment and Control of Forests) Act, 1958-ss. 3, 4, 8, 1 { & 13 and Jowai
Autonomous District (Administration) Act, 1967-Royalty on timber
brought from_p~ivate forests-Whether in the 'nature of a tax-Whether
constitutionally valid.
Constitution of India, Art. 244' (2)/Sixth Schedule, Paragraphs 3
and 8-Nature and scope of powers of District Councils-Competency
to levy fees.
The Autonomous District of Jowai, which was previously as sub-
division of the United Khasi Jaintia Autonomous District, took the
shape of an autonomous district with effect from December 1, 1964
pursuant to a notification issued by ·the Governor of Assam on
November 23, 1964.
The District Council came into being on March 23, 1967 and in
that very ye!ll' it passed the Jowai Autonomous District (Administra-
tion) Act, 1967. By virtue of s. 3 of that Act, the United Khasi and
J aintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of
Forests) Act, 1958 and the Rules'..framed under it, were adopted and
made applicable to the Autonomous District of Jowai. Subseq11ently, on
April 20, 1968 the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the District
Council. issued a notification in exercise of its power under s. 8 of the
latter Act fixing the rates of royalty chargeable on red pine, white pine
and log pine timber grown in the private forests situated within the
jurisdiction of the District Council.
'
.
.
The respondents having become liable to pay the royalty, as
specified in the Notification, instituted writ petition in the High Court,
questioning the oompetence of the District Council and its Executive
Committee and Officers to levy royality on the timber that came frorr
569
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 3 S.C.R.
private forests within its jurisdiction, contending that the royalty, in
question, which was in the nature of tax was not leviable by the District
Council since it had no authority under the Constitution and the laws
made thereunder to impose the said levy.
The District Council contested the writ petitions contending that
since the private forests were also under its management and control
under the provisions of the law in force in that area, it was open to it to
levy the royalty even though it may be in the nature of a tax, and that
even though a tax cannot be levied on the trees grown in private forests,
since the District Council had the competence to levy tax on lands and
buildings, the trees in the private forests being grown on such land the
tax in question could be treated as tax on land which it was entitled to
levy. It was further contended that even if it could not levy a tax, such
amount can be realised by way of fee in order to meet the expenses
incurred by the District Council in connection with the management
and control of the private forests; that the forests in question were not
private forests and so the respondents could not maintain the petition at
all.
The High Court found that the forests in question were private
forests and held that the District Council had no constitutional author-
ity to impose either royality or tax or fee on these forests and that the
notification dated 20th April, 1968 issued under s. 8 of the Act was ultra
· vires and not sanctioned by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, arid
issued a writ of mandamus restraining the District Council from realis-
ing royality from the petitioner-respondents in respect of timber ex-
tracted by them from the two private forests situated within the juris-
diction of the District Council.
In the appeals to this Court by special leave by the District
Council, on the question of the colIBtitutional validity of the Notification
dated April 20, 1968 and whether the royality levied could be realised
by the District Council in respect of trees in private forests.
Dismissing the Appeals, the Court,
HELD: 1. What is sought to be recovered under the Act is not
royalty since the forest does not belong to the District Council. The
amount claimed is a compulsory exaction of money by a public author-
ity for public purposes enforceable by law and is not a payment for
services rendered. It is truly, in the nature of a tax. [584C-DJ
(
DISTRICT COUNCIL v. D.S. RYMBAI
571
2. Section 4 of the UExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.