KUMAUN AND UTTARAKHAND ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960:

Sections 4, 4-A(as amended by U.P. Act 15 of 1978), 8, 18(1) and 19(1)(b) - Forest land- Vesting of, in the State - of Held: By virtue of s. 4-A of the Act, the rights, title and interest of every hissedar in respect of forest land situated in the specified areas ceased with effect from 1.1.1978 and the same were vested in the State Government - Rule 41 of KUZALR Rules provides that forests belonging to State shall be managed by "Gaon Sabha or any other local authority, established" upon a notification issued by the State - So, where the land acquired by the State is to be transferred to a Gaon Sabha/Village Panchayat for its management and use of land leading to betterment of village economy, the legislation is in the nature of agrarian reforms - It is settled law that agrarian reforms fall within Entry 18 of List-II read with Entry 42 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution - Validity of KUZALR Act and, particularly, ss. 4-A, 18(1) and 19(1)(b)thereof is upheld - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254, Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 18 read with Entry 42 of List III - Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules, 1965 - r.41.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:

Article 254 (2), Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 18 read with List Ill Entry 42 - KUZALR Act providing for vesting of forest land in State Government - Held: KUZALR Act is an enactment for agrarian reforms and principally relatable to Entry 18 (land) of List II read with Entry 42 in List Ill and only incidentally trenches upon "forest" i.e. Entry 17-A of list III - Indian Forest Act, 1927 is relatable to Entry 17-A read with Entry 42, both of List Ill and is in pith and substance relatable to Entry 17-A, as it deals with 'forests' and not with land and only incidentally spills over in the field of Entry 42 as it deals with "control over forest land and not property of the Government" - Indian Forest Act, 1927 does not deal with agrarian reforms, but deals with forest policy and management and, therefore, is in a different field - Consequently, in the instant matter, no case of repugnancy is made out and Article 254(2) has no application - Accordingly, both the Acts are legally valid and constitutional - Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - Rule of repugnancy - Doctrine of pith and substance - Doctrine of occupied field.

Article 300-A, Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 18 and List Ill, Entry 42 - Acquisition and requisitioning of property - Compensation - Private forests - Vesting of forest land in State by virtue of s. 4-A of KUZALR Act - Held: When State exercises the power of acquisition of a private property, provision is generally made in the statute to pay compensation to be determined according to the criteria laid down in the statute itself - In the instant case, acquisition of property by State in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State Policy was to distribute the material resources of the community - It does not require payment of market value or indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated - The acquisition and payment of amount are part of the same scheme and they cannot be separated - Though adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned in a court of law, but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory. 

Article 300-A read with Article 226 - Private forests - Vesting of forest land in State - Compensation - Revenue authorities denying compensation stating that the KUZALR Act did not provide for a method to compute compensation in cases where no income was derived from the forests - Held: Awarding no compensation attracts the vice of illegal deprivation of property even in the light of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction - The intention of the legislature to pay compensation is abundantly clear from the fact that s. 19 itself prescribes that compensation payable to a hissedar u/s 12 shall, in the case of private forest, be eight times the amount of average annual income from such forest - In the instant case, income also includes possible income in case of persons who have not exploited the forest and have rather preserved it - In fact, the persons who are maintaining the forest and preserving it for future and posterity cannot be penalised by giving nil compensation - The Assistant Collector is directed to determine and award compensation to the owners of the property by following a reasonable and intelligible criterion evolved on the guidelines provided and in the light of the law enunciated in the judgment - The owners will also be entitled to interest @6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of handover/physical possession of the State till the date of payment - Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 - ss. 18 and 19 - Judicial review.

INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION:

Entries in the three lists of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India - HELD: The entries being the field of legislation must receive liberal construction inspired by a broad and generous spirit.

The appellants were served with a notice under Rule 2 of the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules, 1965 intimating them that effective from 1.1.1978, the rights, title and interest of hissedar in respect of 1600 acres of their forest land (property in question) had vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The objections filed by the appellants challenging the vires of the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1960 (KUZALR Act) and stating that no profit was being made from the property in question, were rejected by the Assistant Collector holding that he had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of the Act and that since the Act did not provide for a method to compute compensation in cases where no income was derived from the forests, the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. The landowners filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the legality and validity of the order of the Assistant Collector and also challenging the constitutional validity of ss.4-A, 18(1)(cc) and 19(1)(b) of KUZALR Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

The land owners filed the instant appeal contending that the provisions of s. 18(1)(cc) and s.19(1)(b) of KUZALR Act as amended by the UP Amendment Act, 1978 were repugnant to ss.37 and 84 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, in so far as no compensation was provided under the U.P. Amendment Act, 1978 for private forests which were preserved and protected through prudent. management, while a private forest to which s. 36 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 applied and which was neglected or mismanaged, could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by paying market value and solatium.

The question for consideration before the Court was: whether the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants were not entitled to any compensation even when their forest land was acquired by the government, merely because the appellants had not derived any income from the said forest.