Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.22 seconds)Documents citing
Ganga Devi & Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P on 11 February, 1972
Ramanand vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2023
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, a named/charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. He further contends that similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused Ganga Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38288 of 2023 (Ganga Devi Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein-below :-
Durgi Devi & Ors vs State Of U.P on 5 April, 1978
The Compensation Officer, as mentioned earlier, did not
appraise the annual yield of the forest on the date of
vesting. A plain reading of clause (e) of Section 39(1)
shows that its sub-clauses (i) and (ii) do not provide for
two alternative methods of calculating the average annual
income of the forest. The conjunction "and" at the end of
sub-clause (i) cannot be read as "or". It conjoins the two
subclauses, and in effect, read in the context of "shall" in
the opening part of clause (e), mandates the Compensation
Officer to take both the factors into consideration in
assessing the average annual income from the forest. The
reason why the Legislature has made compliance with the
requirement of this sub-clause (ii), also, obligatory,
appears to be to ensure that the compensation assessed has a
reasonable nexus and proportion to the actual and potential
value of the forest as on the date of vesting. If a forest
has been repeatedly, wholly and indiscriminately exploited
within forty years or less immediately before the vesting,
its actual and potential value as a forest on the date of
the vesting might be far less than the one calculated on the
basis of its average annual income of the preceding 20 to 40
years as the case may be. In such a case, average annual
income calculated merely on the basis of the income for a
period of 20 to 40 years preceding the vesting, may cause
fortuitous inflation in the assessment of compensation,
conversely, if a forest has been very little exploited in
the preceding forty years and is well-preserved and well-
developed on the date of vesting, then calculation of its
average annual income on the basis of sub-clause (i) alone,
without taking into account its- potential yield on the date
of the vesting, will make the compensation assessed wholly
'illusory, having no relation whatever to the value of the
forest as at the date of vesting. Entry of the appraised
annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting, into
computation under clause (e), operates as a counterpoise
against fortuitous inflation or deflation in the assessment.
in the view we take we are fortified by a decision of this
Court in Ganga Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where it was
pointed out that in computing the average annual income
under clause (e) of Section 39(1), the Compensation Officer
has to refer to both these sub-clauses (i) and (ii). He
cannot adopt either of these sub-clauses. It was also
pointed out that under sub-clause (ii) the annual yield on
the date of vesting is to be appraised by taking into
consideration, inter alia, the number and age of the trees,
the area under forest and the produce. The High Court in
the instant case, while determining the yield under sub-
clause (ii) has relied upon the evidence of Mr. Chopra, a
retired Forest Officer, who took all the relevant factors
into consideration. The High Court also accepted the
evidence of Chaudhri Babu Singh, Forest Contractor, which
was to the effect that for the year ending March 1953, the
sale of one coupe of this forest by the Forest Department of
the State, fetched Rs. 53,000/-. No fault therefore, can be
found with the High Court's finding that on the date of
vesting, the annual yield of the forest, appraised under
subclause (ii) of clause (e) was not less than Rs. 47,128/.
The figure worked out by the High Court under sub-clause (i)
by dividing the total income of sales during the preceding
10 or 11
606
years, i.e. Rs. 6,13,334-8-3 by 20, was Rs. 30,666-11-3.
The total of these figures thus worked out under sub-clauses
Rajiv Sarin & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 9 August, 2011
70. We are of the considered view that the decision of this
Court in Ganga Devi (supra) is not applicable in the present
case in as much as this Court in Ganga Devi (supra) never
dealt with a situation of unexploited forest and the
interpretation of actual income was done in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the said case. The said case does not
deal with a situation where there could be such income
possible to be derived because it was unexploited but there
could be no income derived immediately even if it is used or
exploited. Therefore, the said case is clearly distinguishable
on facts. A distinction and difference has been drawn between
the concept of `no compensation' and the concept of `nil
compensation'. As mandated by Article 300A, a person can be
deprived of his property but in a just, fair and reasonable
manner. In an appropriate case the Court may find `nil
compensation' also justified and fair if it is found that the
State has undertaken to take over the liability and also has
assured to compensate in a just and fair manner. But the
situation would be totally different if it is a case of `no
compensation' at all. As already held `a law seeking to acquire
private property for public purpose cannot say that `no
Page 49 of 52
compensation' would be paid. The present case is a case of
payment of `no compensation' at all. In the case at hand, the
forest land which was vested on the State by operation of law
cannot be said to be non-productive or unproductive by any
stretch of imagination. The property in question was definitely
a productive asset. That being so, the criteria to determine
possible income on the date of vesting would be to ascertain
such compensation paid to similarly situated owners of
neighboring forests on the date of vesting. Even otherwise,
revenue authority can always make an estimation of possible
income on the date of vesting if the property in question had
been exploited by the appellants and then calculate
compensation on the basis thereof in terms of Sections 18(1)
(cc) and 19(1) (b) of KUZALR Act. We therefore find sufficient
force in the argument of the counsel for the appellants that
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.
Sarjeet Singh (D) Th. Lrs vs Hari Singh & Ors on 15 October, 2014
Gair
Mumkin literally means that which is not possible; and in the present
context indicates waste or uncultivable land. Bila Lagan connotes either
rent-free grant or one where the rent has not been fixed. Sayar/Sayer
literally refers to moveables; it also concerns miscellaneous levies apart
from land revenue. As defined in Ganga Devi vs. State of U.P., AIR
1972 SC 931, it “includes whatever has to be paid or delivered by a
licencee on account of right of gathering produce, forest rights, fisheries
and the use of water for irrigation from artificial sources”. Sayar or
Sayer are variable imposts on movable property and are thus distinct from
land revenue. Khasra refers to the ‘field book’ or village register
recording the possession or tenure of agricultural land and the cognate
term khasra girdawari is the crop or harvest inspection record pertaining
to the land. Khewat lists the co-sharers and proprietors of
village/agricultural lands along with their respective liabilities to pay
the land revenue. Khud-kasht denotes a proprietor of land who is
cultivating it himself.
1) Ganga Dev & Ors. vs State 28 (1985) Dlt 35. on 23 July, 2011
1) Ganga Dev & Ors. Vs State 28 (1985) DLT 35.
Jagdish Chand And Others vs Amar Singh And Others on 1 July, 2015
9. Gair Mumkin literally means that which is not
possible; and in the present context indicates waste or uncultivable
land. Bila Lagan connotes either rent-free grant or one where the
rent has not been fixed. Sayar/Sayer literally refers to moveables; it
also concerns miscellaneous levies apart from land revenue. As
defined in Ganga Devi vs. State of U. P., 1972 AIR(SC) 931, it
"includes whatever has to be paid or delivered by a licencee on
account of right of gathering produce, forest rights, fisheries and
the use of water for irrigation from artificial sources". Sayar or
Sayer are variable imposts on movable property and are thus
distinct from land revenue.
Jagdish Chand And Others vs Amar Singh And Others on 1 July, 2015
9. Gair Mumkin literally means that which is not
possible; and in the present context indicates waste or uncultivable
land. Bila Lagan connotes either rent-free grant or one where the
rent has not been fixed. Sayar/Sayer literally refers to moveables; it
also concerns miscellaneous levies apart from land revenue. As
defined in Ganga Devi vs. State of U. P., 1972 AIR(SC) 931, it
"includes whatever has to be paid or delivered by a licencee on
account of right of gathering produce, forest rights, fisheries and
the use of water for irrigation from artificial sources". Sayar or
Sayer are variable imposts on movable property and are thus
distinct from land revenue.
Gopal Ansal vs State on 12 May, 2017
In order to supplement this argument,
reliance would be placed on the decisions in Saju v. State of Kerala, reported
as (2001) 1 SCC 378; Ganga Devi v. State, reported as 1985 (9) DRJ 158;
and Kulwant Singh v. State of Bihar, reported as (2007) 15 SC 670.
Harbans Kumari And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 October, 1978
Again in Ganga Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1) it
was pointed out by this Court that in computing the average
annual income under clause (e) of section 39(1), the
compensation officer has to refer to both these sub-clauses