Ganga Devi &amp; Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
with the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court was correct in holding that the sayar income during 10 agricultural years immediately proceeding the date of vesting should be taken into consideration in determining the gross assets under section 39 of the Act. 13. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not deal with the finding of the Compensation Officer with regard to income from poola grass for the Fasli years 1352 and 1353 in respect of Prithipur forest. The Lalas claimed for the Fasli year 1352 a sum of Rs. 4600/- and for the Fasli year 1353 a sum of Rs. 4500/- as income from poola grass. The Compensation Officer gave the additional reason for rejecting the income from poola grass for these two years that in the extract of Khatauni it was not mentioned as to what the source of income was. Exhibit P-3 being the extract from khatauni for the Fasli year 1352 would show that Rs. 4600/- was the rent for clause 13 sawai items. Again, Exhibit P-10 for the Fasli year 1353 in respect of Prithipur forest would show the sum of Rs. 4500/- on account of rent for sayar. Therefore when the Compensation Officer will deal with sayar income he will take in to consideration Exhibits P-3 and P-10 for the Fasli years 1352 and 1353.14. In the High Court it was contended that the Compensation Officer was wrong in taking 25 years to be the period on the basis of which annual average income of the forest was to be computed under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act. The High Court did not accept that contention. This contention was not repeated in this Court. 15. The High Court held that the Compensation Officer was wrong in arriving at the average annual income by adding the annual income on the basis of period of 25 years and the appraisement of the annual yield on the date of vesting. The High Court said that the two clauses in section 39 (1) (e) of the Act were independent methods of finding out the average annual income from forest and it was not intended that the average annual income should be arrived at by adding the two methods. Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act speaks of computation of average annual income from forest (i) on the basis of income for a period of 20 to 40 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of vesting as the Compensation Officer may consider reasonable and (ii) on the appraisement of the annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting. The two are separate matters. It cannot be said that the Compensation Officer will adopt either of the clauses. The Compensation officer has to refer to both the clauses in order to compute the average annual income from forest. The High Court is correct in holding that the average annual income from forest under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act cannot be computed by arithmetical addition of the figures arrived at on the basis of clause (ii). It is the average annual income from forest, which is to be computed. The words of importance are average annual income. Under the first clause the actual income derived from the forest for a number of years before the date of vesting as the Compensation officer may consider reasonable is to be taken and the average calculated. Under the second clause the annual yield as on the date of vesting is to be appraised. The Compensation Officer is to compute the average income by taking recourse to both the methods. The second clause which speaks of appraisement of the annual yield will be done inter alia by taking into consideration the number and age of trees, the area of cultivation and the produce. 16. In the present appeals the High Court found on the materials that the forest had been felled almost completely during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting. The evidence further established that there were no mature trees for felling and that the bulk of the crop that had existed had grown within a period of 8 years. It was therefore clear that the whole of the forests income derived during those 9 or 10 years for which accounts of the Lalas were available represented the whole growth of the forest during the last 40 years and even if the forest had been gradually cut during the last 40 years the income derived would not have been substantially more than what have been derived during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting. 17. The High Court assessed the evidence. We do not find that there is any error in regard to the appreciation or assessment of evidence by the High Court and the conclusion that under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act the annual average income of Prithipur forest came to Rs. 4396.56 and of village Chharba at Rs. 2039.68. 18. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Compensation Officer did not consider the entire forest income for the Fasli years 1352, 1356, 1357 and 1358 for the Prithipur forest on the ground that the entire income was not the sale price of forest but that the Lalas worked the forest and a portion of the income was from the sale of the timber of that forest. The High Court rightly held that the forest income was referable to the price of the standing timber and income which the Lalas derived by processing wood would not be within forest income. 19. For these reasons we uphold the judgment and order of the High Court with this modification that when the Compensation Officer will deal with the income from poola grass as sayar income as directed by the High Court the Compensation Officer will also take into consideration the income from poola grass for the Prithipur forest for the years 1352 and 1353 Fasli.
0[ds]15. The High Court held that the Compensation Officer was wrong in arriving at the average annual income by adding the annual income on the basis of period of 25 years and the appraisement of the annual yield on the date of vesting. The High Court said that the two clauses in section 39 (1) (e) of the Act were independent methods of finding out the average annual income from forest and it was not intended that the average annual income should be arrived at by adding the two methods. Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act speaks of computation of average annual income from forest (i) on the basis of income for a period of 20 to 40 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of vesting as the Compensation Officer may consider reasonable and (ii) on the appraisement of the annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting. The two are separate matters. It cannot be said that the Compensation Officer will adopt either of the clauses. The Compensation officer has to refer to both the clauses in order to compute the average annual income from forest. The High Court is correct in holding that the average annual income from forest under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act cannot be computed by arithmetical addition of the figures arrived at on the basis of clause (ii). It is the average annual income from forest, which is to be computed. The words of importance are average annual income. Under the first clause the actual income derived from the forest for a number of years before the date of vesting as the Compensation officer may consider reasonable is to be taken and the average calculated. Under the second clause the annual yield as on the date of vesting is to be appraised. The Compensation Officer is to compute the average income by taking recourse to both the methods. The second clause which speaks of appraisement of the annual yield will be done inter alia by taking into consideration the number and age of trees, the area of cultivation and the produce16. In the present appeals the High Court found on the materials that the forest had been felled almost completely during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting. The evidence further established that there were no mature trees for felling and that the bulk of the crop that had existed had grown within a period of 8 years. It was therefore clear that the whole of the forests income derived during those 9 or 10 years for which accounts of the Lalas were available represented the whole growth of the forest during the last 40 years and even if the forest had been gradually cut during the last 40 years the income derived would not have been substantially more than what have been derived during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting17. The High Court assessed the evidence. We do not find that there is any error in regard to the appreciation or assessment of evidence by the High Court and the conclusion that under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act the annual average income of Prithipur forest came to Rs. 4396.56 and of village Chharba at Rs. 2039.6818. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Compensation Officer did not consider the entire forest income for the Fasli years 1352, 1356, 1357 and 1358 for the Prithipur forest on the ground that the entire income was not the sale price of forest but that the Lalas worked the forest and a portion of the income was from the sale of the timber of that forest.The High Court rightly held that the forest income was referable to the price of the standing timber and income which the Lalas derived by processing wood would not be within forest income.
### Instruction:
Forecast the likely verdict of the case (granting (1) or denying (0) the appeal) and then rationalize your prediction by pinpointing and explaining pivotal sentences in the case document.

### Input:
with the reasoning of the High Court. The High Court was correct in holding that the sayar income during 10 agricultural years immediately proceeding the date of vesting should be taken into consideration in determining the gross assets under section 39 of the Act. 13. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not deal with the finding of the Compensation Officer with regard to income from poola grass for the Fasli years 1352 and 1353 in respect of Prithipur forest. The Lalas claimed for the Fasli year 1352 a sum of Rs. 4600/- and for the Fasli year 1353 a sum of Rs. 4500/- as income from poola grass. The Compensation Officer gave the additional reason for rejecting the income from poola grass for these two years that in the extract of Khatauni it was not mentioned as to what the source of income was. Exhibit P-3 being the extract from khatauni for the Fasli year 1352 would show that Rs. 4600/- was the rent for clause 13 sawai items. Again, Exhibit P-10 for the Fasli year 1353 in respect of Prithipur forest would show the sum of Rs. 4500/- on account of rent for sayar. Therefore when the Compensation Officer will deal with sayar income he will take in to consideration Exhibits P-3 and P-10 for the Fasli years 1352 and 1353.14. In the High Court it was contended that the Compensation Officer was wrong in taking 25 years to be the period on the basis of which annual average income of the forest was to be computed under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act. The High Court did not accept that contention. This contention was not repeated in this Court. 15. The High Court held that the Compensation Officer was wrong in arriving at the average annual income by adding the annual income on the basis of period of 25 years and the appraisement of the annual yield on the date of vesting. The High Court said that the two clauses in section 39 (1) (e) of the Act were independent methods of finding out the average annual income from forest and it was not intended that the average annual income should be arrived at by adding the two methods. Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act speaks of computation of average annual income from forest (i) on the basis of income for a period of 20 to 40 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of vesting as the Compensation Officer may consider reasonable and (ii) on the appraisement of the annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting. The two are separate matters. It cannot be said that the Compensation Officer will adopt either of the clauses. The Compensation officer has to refer to both the clauses in order to compute the average annual income from forest. The High Court is correct in holding that the average annual income from forest under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act cannot be computed by arithmetical addition of the figures arrived at on the basis of clause (ii). It is the average annual income from forest, which is to be computed. The words of importance are average annual income. Under the first clause the actual income derived from the forest for a number of years before the date of vesting as the Compensation officer may consider reasonable is to be taken and the average calculated. Under the second clause the annual yield as on the date of vesting is to be appraised. The Compensation Officer is to compute the average income by taking recourse to both the methods. The second clause which speaks of appraisement of the annual yield will be done inter alia by taking into consideration the number and age of trees, the area of cultivation and the produce. 16. In the present appeals the High Court found on the materials that the forest had been felled almost completely during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting. The evidence further established that there were no mature trees for felling and that the bulk of the crop that had existed had grown within a period of 8 years. It was therefore clear that the whole of the forests income derived during those 9 or 10 years for which accounts of the Lalas were available represented the whole growth of the forest during the last 40 years and even if the forest had been gradually cut during the last 40 years the income derived would not have been substantially more than what have been derived during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting. 17. The High Court assessed the evidence. We do not find that there is any error in regard to the appreciation or assessment of evidence by the High Court and the conclusion that under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act the annual average income of Prithipur forest came to Rs. 4396.56 and of village Chharba at Rs. 2039.68. 18. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Compensation Officer did not consider the entire forest income for the Fasli years 1352, 1356, 1357 and 1358 for the Prithipur forest on the ground that the entire income was not the sale price of forest but that the Lalas worked the forest and a portion of the income was from the sale of the timber of that forest. The High Court rightly held that the forest income was referable to the price of the standing timber and income which the Lalas derived by processing wood would not be within forest income. 19. For these reasons we uphold the judgment and order of the High Court with this modification that when the Compensation Officer will deal with the income from poola grass as sayar income as directed by the High Court the Compensation Officer will also take into consideration the income from poola grass for the Prithipur forest for the years 1352 and 1353 Fasli.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
15. The High Court held that the Compensation Officer was wrong in arriving at the average annual income by adding the annual income on the basis of period of 25 years and the appraisement of the annual yield on the date of vesting. The High Court said that the two clauses in section 39 (1) (e) of the Act were independent methods of finding out the average annual income from forest and it was not intended that the average annual income should be arrived at by adding the two methods. Section 39 (1) (e) of the Act speaks of computation of average annual income from forest (i) on the basis of income for a period of 20 to 40 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of vesting as the Compensation Officer may consider reasonable and (ii) on the appraisement of the annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting. The two are separate matters. It cannot be said that the Compensation Officer will adopt either of the clauses. The Compensation officer has to refer to both the clauses in order to compute the average annual income from forest. The High Court is correct in holding that the average annual income from forest under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act cannot be computed by arithmetical addition of the figures arrived at on the basis of clause (ii). It is the average annual income from forest, which is to be computed. The words of importance are average annual income. Under the first clause the actual income derived from the forest for a number of years before the date of vesting as the Compensation officer may consider reasonable is to be taken and the average calculated. Under the second clause the annual yield as on the date of vesting is to be appraised. The Compensation Officer is to compute the average income by taking recourse to both the methods. The second clause which speaks of appraisement of the annual yield will be done inter alia by taking into consideration the number and age of trees, the area of cultivation and the produce16. In the present appeals the High Court found on the materials that the forest had been felled almost completely during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting. The evidence further established that there were no mature trees for felling and that the bulk of the crop that had existed had grown within a period of 8 years. It was therefore clear that the whole of the forests income derived during those 9 or 10 years for which accounts of the Lalas were available represented the whole growth of the forest during the last 40 years and even if the forest had been gradually cut during the last 40 years the income derived would not have been substantially more than what have been derived during the last 9 or 10 years preceding the date of vesting17. The High Court assessed the evidence. We do not find that there is any error in regard to the appreciation or assessment of evidence by the High Court and the conclusion that under section 39 (1) (e) of the Act the annual average income of Prithipur forest came to Rs. 4396.56 and of village Chharba at Rs. 2039.6818. Counsel for the appellants contended that the Compensation Officer did not consider the entire forest income for the Fasli years 1352, 1356, 1357 and 1358 for the Prithipur forest on the ground that the entire income was not the sale price of forest but that the Lalas worked the forest and a portion of the income was from the sale of the timber of that forest.The High Court rightly held that the forest income was referable to the price of the standing timber and income which the Lalas derived by processing wood would not be within forest income.
