DURGI DEVI & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 05-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•i 
-
... 
• 
595 
DURGI DEVI & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
April 5, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA. N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.j 
B 
U.l'. Z.-u1111u/ari Aholition and Land Refonns Act, 1950 
Sections 
39(1) 
(e)(i) and Sertio11 44 read with Rule 34 of U. P. Za111i11dari Abolition & Land 
Re_forms Rules 1951-Scope of-Whether the co111pe11sation officer is required 
to apprafre the m11111al yield of the forests 011 the date of vesting and take sucfi 
!'ield also, into consideration while assessifl? the average annual i11co1ne froni 
the forests r111der clause (e) of Sec. 39(1)-Whether 15% deduction is per-
111issiblt~ by Wil) of 111a11age111ent expe11ses 1111der Section 44(c)-Period to be 
taken into (01:s:deratio11 under sub clause ( 1) of sectio11 39( l) (e) of the Act, 
what is-Co111p11tutio1I of con1pe11satio11. 
On the issuance of a Notification under Section 4 of the U.P. 
Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, all rights and interests of the interme-
diary Oand!orci) including the forests in village Dhalani and Soma, vested in 
the State of li.P. \vith effect from the date of vesting i.e. July 1, 1952. 
A draft 
compensation Roll under Section 40 of the Act, \Vas prepared by the Com-
pensation Officer in respect of the intermediary's interests in the said villages 
and served upon the latter, who whereupon filed objections against the Roll. 
The intermediary claimed Rs. 64,971-9-7 more than the one shown as due to 
him in the draft roll. 
Purporting' to act under Section 39(1) (c) (i) of the Act, 
the Compensation Officer held that the sale proceeds of the forests in the area 
of village Sorna during 35 years immediately preceding the date of vesting, 
r1ggr~gated to Rs. 6,13,334-8-3. 
He divided this figure by 35 
and 
took 
the 
resultant figure, i.e Rs. 17,524/- as the annual income from the forests 
in 
villag,;: Sorna. 
But as Rs. 1775-14-6 had already been included in the gross 
assets, he deducted this amount and thus fixed the annual income from 
the 
forests in the village, at Rs. 15,748-1-6. 
From this figure, he further deducted 
15% for nianagement cost and heir.I that the intermediary was 
entitled to a 
further sum of Rs. !3,471-11-6 over and above the one shown as due to him 
in the draft Compensation Roll. 
The intermediary filed an appeal in the High Court against the said find-
ings which amounted to a decree under the Act, and the State filed its cross-
c1bjections. 
The High Court held that the Compensation Officer in preparing 
the Compensation Roll had committed tVt'O errors : Firstly, he completely ex-
cluded from consideration the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) 
of 
Section 39(1) and did not either appraise the annual yield of the forests or 
take the same into consideration. 
Secondly, he did not give any reason for 
taking the period of 35 years under Sub-Clause (i) of Section 39( 1) (e) as 
the measure for calculating the annual average incoine from the forests. After 
appraising the evidence on record, the High Court held that it was just and 
proper that the number of years to be :idopted in calculating: the 
average 
annual income under sub-clause (i) of Section 39(1)(e) should be 20 years.· 
On this basis, the J~igh Court divided the sum of Rs. 6,13,334-8-3 that had 
been worked 
out by the Compensation Officer in 
respect 
of 
the 
income 
from sales of forests in Village Sorna, by 20, and 
arrived at 
the 
figure 
Rs. 
3(),666-11-~. The High Court further held on an interpretation of clause 
(e) of Section 39( I), that the Compensation Office: was bound to appra!~e 
the annual yield of the forests on t~e date of v_esting un4er Sll;b-clause (n) 
of Section 39(1) (e) and take such yield• also 
into cons1derat1on. 
Relying 
mainly on the evidence of Shri D. D. Chopra (a retired Divisional Fc;irest Officer 
examined by the intermediary), the .~igh Court fc;iund that the yield 
of the 
forest, 
appra:..,ed 
\Inder 
clause. 
(11) 
of 
Section 
39(1)(e) 
of 
the 
Act, would be Rs. 47,t28/- The High Court further appears to have added the 
/ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978J 3 S.C.R. 
figures worked out by it under sub-clauses. (i) and (ii) of Section 39(1)(e) 
and then d1v1ded the same by two. 
By this process, considering all 
the cir-
cumstances of the case, the High Court found that the fair amount to be fixed 
as the average annual income from the forests in Village Sorna, would be 
Rs. 40,000/-. It further held t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.