Civil Appeals Nos 171 171A 171D of 1969
From the Judgment and decree dated 10 12 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No 51155
Lal Narain Sinha P P Singh J B Dadachanji K John and J Sinha for the Appellants
G N Dikshit and M V Goswami for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH J
These five appeals by certificates under Article 1331c of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question relating to the interpretation of section 391 e of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 Act No 1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
As the facts giving rise to these appeals are identical it shall suffice to narrate the facts of the case culminating in Appeal No 171 of 1969
The predecessor in interest of the appellants the late Jodha Mal owned several private forests in the State of UP including the one consisting of three compartments comprising a total area of 48457 acres in village Rajiwala Attick Farm Mahal Sansar in District Dehradun
On the vesting of the said forest in the State of UP by virtue of section 4 of the Act the question arose about the assessment and payment of compensation therefor to the heirs of the intermediary
On service of draft compensation roll prepared under section 40 of the Act each one of the appellants filed separate objections in regard thereto before the Compensation officer Dehradun who disposed of the same by his order dated August 31 1953 holding that the average annual income for the said forest which could be taken into consideration while computing its compensation was Rs 4551 as disclosed by the appellants  accounts for a period of 22 years preceding the date of vesting in terms of clause i of section 391e of the Act and Rs 450 was its annual yield on the date of vesting as per terms of clause ii of section 391 e of the Act
Dividing the sum total of these two figures by 2 the Compensation officer held that Rs 5001 was the annual income from the aforesaid forest to the intermediaries
Aggrieved by the computation of compensation the respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under section SO of the Act
The appellant s also filed cross appeals claiming that the average annual income as assessed by the Compensation officer was too low
Being of the view that while com 30 puting the average annual income from the forest both the results arrived at by working both the clauses of section 391e of the Act had to be looked into and considered and it had to be objectively decided as to what the average annual income from the forest would be the High Court held that Rs 2000 and not Rs 450 was the income under clause ii of section 391e of the Act
On the aforesaid basis the High Court came to the conclusion that Rs 3000 and not Rs 5001 was the average annual income on the basis of which gross assets had to be calculated in computation of compensation in respect of the aforesaid forest
The High Court by its judgment and decree dated December 10 1963 disposed of the appeal and the cross appeal in the manner indicated above
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court the appellants have come up in appeal to this Court
The respondent has also filed objections with regard to the item of Rs 2000 
Mr Lalnarayan Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a very short point
Assailing the method adopted by the High Court in computing the compensation he has urged that the High Court has missed the real purport and meaning of the provisions relating to the computation of compensation and that the relevant portion of section 39 of the Act did not authorise the High Court to calculate the compensation by taking a mean of the aforesaid two figures
He has further urged that having worked out the average annual income according to the method indicated in clause i of section 391e of the Act the High Court was not required to work out the annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting
We regret we cannot accede to this contention
Section 391 e of the Act provides as follows 39Gross assets of a mahal 1 Gross assets as respects a mahal shall be the aggregate gross income of the land or estate comprised in the mahal and such income shall comprise    eaverage annual income from forests which shall be computed i on the basis of the income for a period of twenty to forty 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
 31 It will be noticed that the opening words of the above quoted section which is couched in very emphatic terms govern not only clause i but also clause ii  of section 39  1  e of the Act
Consequently neither of the two factors mentioned in section 391e of the Act can be ignored while computing the average annual income
Now so far as the connotation of the word average  is concerned it does not admit of any doubt
According to shorter oxford English Dictionary the word average  means arithmetical mean to estimate by dividing the aggregate of a series by the number of its units 
The same is the connotation of the word average  according to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language where the total receipt has been stated to mean the total receipt from sales divided by the number of the units sold
On a true construction of section 391e of the Act it appears to us that the legislature cast an obligation on the Compensation officer to work out the compensation by computing the average annual income giving due weight to both the factors mentioned in the aforesaid clauses i and ii
Accordingly we are of the view that the High Court was correct in computing the average income by adding up to two figures ie Of Rs 4551 and Rs 2000 and arriving at a mean on that basis
The position is also not res integra as in Smt
Durgi Devi  Ors
vs State of UPl this Court held that the average annual income has to be arrived at by taking into consideration not only the income referred to in clause i of section 391 e but also the estimated annual yield of the forest on the date of vesting
The following observations made therein are apposite
A plain reading of clause e of section 391 shows that its sub clauses i and ii do not provide for two alter native 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 sub clauses 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 imme 1  3 SCC 101
32 diately 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 than 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 forests 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
 Again in Ganga Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh1 it was pointed out by this Court that in computing the average annual income under clause e of section 391 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
For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed with costs
SR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
on the vesting of the forests belonging to the appellants in the State of UP by virtue of Section 4 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 Act 1 of 1951 the question arose about the assessment and payment of compensation therefor to the heirs of the intermediary
The compensation officer held that the average annual income from the said forests which could be taken into consideration while computing its compensation was Rs 4551 as disclosed by the appellants  accounts for a period of 22 years preceding the date of vesting in terms of clause i of Section 391e of the Act and Rs 450 was its annual yield on the date of vesting as per terms of clause ii of Section 391e of the Act
The compensation officer held that Rs 5001 was the annual income from the aforesaid forest to the intermediaries
The High Court in appeal held that Rs 2000 and not Rs 450 was the income under clause ii of Section 391e of the Act and therefore came to the conclusion that Rs 3000 was the average annual income on the basis of which gross assets had to be calculated in computation of compensation in respect of the said forest
Dismissing the appeals by certificate the Court  HELD 1
The opening words of Section 391e of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act 1950 which is couched in very emphatic terms govern not only clause 1 but also clause ii of the Section
Consequently neither of the two factors mentioned in Section 391e of the Act can be ignored while computing the average annual income
The connotation of the word average  does not admit of any doubt
31A B ii On a true construction of Section 391e of the Act it is clear that the Legislature cast an obligation on the compensation officer to work out the compensation by computing the average annual income giving due weight to both the factors mentioned in the aforesaid clauses i
and ii
He cannot adopt either of these sub clauses
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
31C 32E Durgi Devi and Ors
vs State of UP 1978 3 SCR p 595 Ganga Devi vs State of UP  applied 29