Holding

The KUZALR Act is a constitutionally valid agrarian‑reform statute, not repugnant to the Indian Forest Act, and it obliges the State to pay compensation as prescribed, rejecting the notion of ‘no compensation’.

Summary

The appellants, heirs of a zamindar, challenged a Gazette notification under Section 4‑A of the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (KUZALR Act) that vested their 1,600 acres of forest land in the State on 1 January 1978. They argued that the vesting was unconstitutional, repugnant to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and that no compensation was payable because the forest generated no income. The Supreme Court held that the KUZALR Act is a valid agrarian‑reform law falling within List II Entry 18 and List III Entry 42, that it does not conflict with the Indian Forest Act, and that the Act expressly mandates compensation (eight times the average annual income) even where actual income is nil. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to determine and award compensation with interest, partially allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Sections 4‑A, 18(1)(cc) and 19(1)(b) of the KUZALR Act in view of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Article 254 of the Constitution.
Whether the State’s vesting of private forest land without compensation violates Article 300A and the requirement of just compensation.
Whether the Assistant Collector was correct in holding that no compensation is payable where the forest yields no income.
Whether the KUZALR Act, as an agrarian‑reform measure, falls within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 18 of List II read with Entry 42 of List III.
Whether Presidential assent was required for the State law and whether it was validly obtained.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 42nd Amendment, s. 44th Amendment, s. Article 14, s. Article 19, s. Article 21, s. Article 254, s. Article 300A, s. Article 31A, s. Article 31B
Indian Forest Act, 1927s. 36, s. 37, s. 84
Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (KUZALR Act)s. 12, s. 18(1)(cc), s. 19(1)(b), s. 4-A, s. 8
Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1965s. Rule 41
Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

agrarian reformforest land vestingcompensationArticle 300ArepugnancyArticle 254pith and substancestate legislationland acquisitionconstitutional validity

Judgment

[20'11] 9 S.C.R. 1012
...
A RA.llV SARIN & ANR.
v.
STATE OF UTIARAKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4772 of 1998)
AUGUST 9, 2011. '
B of

[S.H. KAPADIA, C.11, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

C 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 -
Held: By virtue of s. 4-A of the Act, the rights, title and interest ~
D 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,
E established" upon a notification issued by the State - So,
where the land acquired by the State is to be transferred to a
Gaon SabhaNillage 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 •
F /aw 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 KUZALF~ 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
G List Ill - Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reform Rules, 1965 - r.41.
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Article 254 (2), Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 18 read
H 1012
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1013
..--.,
' _.
with List Ill Entry 42 - KUZALR Act providing for vesting of A
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 Ill -
-(
' Indian Forest Act, 1927 is relatable to Entry 17-A read with B
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"-lndian Forest Act, 1927 does not deal with c
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
f
is made out and Article 254 (2) has no application -
Accordingly, both the Acts are legally valid and constitutional
D
- 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 - E
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 ge~erally made in the statute to pay·
compensation to be determined according to the criteria laid F
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 - G
~ 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.
H'
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.

,_ ,
.~

A Article 300-A read with Article 226 - Private forests -
Vesting of fomst land in StatE1 - Compensation - Revenue
authorities denying compensation stating that the KUZALR
Act did not provide for a method to compute compensation
in cases whern no income was derived from the forests - Held:
g 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
c compensation payable to a hissedar uls 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
D
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
E
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 -
F Judicial review.

INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION:

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

The appellants were served with a notice under Rule
2 of the ~:umaun and Ut:tarakhand Zamindari Abolition
H and Land Reform Rules, 1965 intimating them that
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1015

effective from 1.1.1978, the rights, title and interest of A
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 B
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 c
compensation in cases where no income was derived
form 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
0
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, E
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 F
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 G
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. H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 By a Gazette Notification dated 21.12.1977
u/s 4-A of the Kumaun arid Uttarakhand Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by the
U.P. Act No. 15 of 1978, the' rights, title and interest of
8
every hissedar in respect o1f forest land situated in the
specified areas ceased with effect from 1.1.1978 and the
same were vested in the State Government. [para 2)
[1027-C-D]

C 1.2 It is settled law that agrarian reforms fall within
Entry 18 of List-II read witlh Entry 42 of List-Ill of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Rule 41 of the
KUZALR Rules, 1965 declarEis that the forests belonging
to the State shall be managed by "Goan Sabha or any
D other local a.uthority established" upon a notification
issued by the State Government. This being so, it clearly
brings out that the vestin!9 of forest land under the
KUZALR Act is directly linke'd with the agrarian reforms,
as the land as also the fore:;t are managed by the Goan
E Sabha or any local authority dealing with the rights of
villagers for betterment of village economy. So, where the
land acquired by the State is; to be transferred to a Goan
Sabha I Village Panchayat f'or its management and use
of land leading to betterm1rnt of village economy, the
F legislation is in the nature of agrarian reforms. [paras 17,
20 and 21] [1032-G; 1033-E-F; 1034-F·G]
Ranjit Singh and Others \Is. State of Punjab and Others
[1965) 1 SCR 82 - relied on.

G 1.3 It is true that s.4A. of KUZALR Act, 1960, as
amended by the UP Amendment Act 1978, provides that
Chapter II and Chapter V of !the KUZALR Act would apply
mutatis mutandls and Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules is
relatable to Chapter IV of th1e KUZALR Act. However, the
H necessary consequence of s.4A of the KUZALR Act is
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1017

~
that the forest land vests in the State and all that Rule 41 A
of the KUZALR Rules does is to provide how the lands
vested in the State including forest and non-forest land
. is to be dealt with. Thus, Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules
clearly applies to forest lands as well, which are vested
i
• in the State u/s 4A of the KUZALR Act and, therefore, B
have become the land/property of the State, which would
be managed by the Goan Sabha. [para 23] [1035-E-H]

Re12ugnanc~ and Article 254 of the Constitution

2.1 It is trite law that the plea of repugnancy would c
be attracted only if both the legislations i.e. one made by
Parliament and the other by the State Legislature, fall
under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the
-" Constitution. Repugnancy between the two statutes
would arise if there is a direct conflict between the two D
provisions and the law made by Parliament and the law
made by the State Legislature occupy the same fie\d.
Therefore, whenever the issue of repugnancy between
the law passed by Parliament and of State legislature are
raised, it becomes quite necessary to examine as to E
whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same
subject matter or different. [Para 28) [1037-C-G]
' 2.2 It is by now a well-established rule of
" interpretation that the entries in the three lists of the
F
Seventh Schedule being fields of legislation, must
receive liberal construction inspired by a broad and
generous spirit and not a narrow or pedantic approach.
[para 29] [1037-G-H; 1038-A]
Navinchandra Mafat/al v. C/T1955 SCR 829=AIR1955 G
SC 58 and State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah
2008 (12) SCR 1083 = (2008) 13 sec 5 - relied on.
2.3 For repugnancy under Article 254 of the
Constitution, there is a twin requirement, which is to be H
1018 SUPREME COURT Rf:PORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A fulfilled: firstly, there has to /be a "repugnancy" between
the Central and the State Acts; and secondly, the
Presidential assent has to be held as being non-existent.
The test for determining such repugnancy is indeed to
find out the dominant intention of the both legislations
B and whether· such dominamt intentions of both the
legislations are alike or different. [para 38] [1041-D-F]

2.4 A provision in one legislation in order to give
effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the
same subject as covered b:v the provision of the ·other
C legislation, but such partial 1or incidental coverage of the
same area in a different context and to achieve a different
purpose does not attract the doctrine of repugnancy.
Thus, in order to attract the doctrine of repugnancy, both
the legislations must be substantially on the same .,
D subject. While considering the issue of repugnancy what
is required to be considered is the legislation in question
as a whole and its main object and purpose, and while
doing so incidental encroa1::hment is to be ignored and
disregarded. [para 35 and ~18] [1040-G; 1041-E-F]
E
2.5 Repugnancy in the context of Article 254 of the
Constitution is understo.od as. requiring the .fulfillment of
a "Triple test", reiterated by the Constitution Bench in
Karunanidhi's case, namel3r, (i) that there is a clear and
F direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the •
State Act; (ii) that such an inconsistency is absolutely
Irreconcilable; and (iii) that 'the inconsistency between the
provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring
the two Acts into direct cc111ision with each other and a
G situation js reached wherE1 it is impossible to obey the
one without disobeying the other. The two legislations
.must cover the same field. This has to be examined by a
reference to the doctrine 1r.if pith and substance. [Paras
39-40] [1041-G; 1042-A-D]
H
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1019
.
·- _,\
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, 1979 ( 3 ) SCR 254 = A
(1979) 3 sec 431 - relied on

2.6 As and when there is a challenge to the legislative
competence, the courts will try to ascertain the pith and
substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in
question. In this process, it would also be necessary for B
i
·~

the courts to examine the true nature and character of the
enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out
whether the enactment in question is genuinely referable
to a field of the legislation allotted to the respective
legislature under the constitutional scheme. Thus, c
whether on account of the exhaustive code doctrine or
whether on account of irreconcilable conflict concept, the
real test is that would there be a room or possibility for
, " both the Acts to apply. Repugnancy would follow only if
there is no such room or possibility. [para 30 and 50) D
[1035-C-E; 1048-B]
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 589;
Hoechst harmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1983 (3) seR
130 = (1983) 4 sec 45; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti E
=
Lal Shah, 2008 (12) SCR 1083 (2008) 13 SCC 5; and Govt.
of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society, 2005 (2 ) seR 302 =
,.
(2005) 3 sec 212 - referred to.

2.7 KUZALR Act is a law principally relatable to Entry
18 (land) of List II read with Entry 42 in List Ill of the F
Seventh Schedule and only incidentally trenches upon
"forest" i.e. Entry 17A/List-Ill of the Seventh Schedule.
This is so because it is an enactment for agrarian reforms
and so the basic subject matter is "land". Since the land
happens to be forest land, it spills over and incidentally G
; encroaches on Entry 17A i.e. "forest" as well. On the other
hand, the Central Act i.e. the Indian Forests Act 1927 is
relatable to Entry 17A read with entry 42, both of List Ill
of the Seventh Schedule. It is in pith and substance
relatable to Entry 17A, as it deals with "forests" and not H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C;R.

'-
-.
A with "land" or any other subject. It only incidentally spills
over in the field of Entry 42, as it deals with "control over
forest land and not property of the Government" and in
that context s.37, as an alternative to management of
forests u/s. 36 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, deals with
B the grant of power to acquire land under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894. [para 32) [1039-8-E]

Glanrock Estate Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu
=
2010 (12) SC:R 597 (2010) 10 SCC 96 - referred to.

c 2.8 It is quite clear that the KUZALR Act relates to
agrarian reforms and, there1fore, it deals with the "land";
however, the Indian Forests Act 1927 deal with "forests"
and its management, pres~~rvation and levy of royalty/
fees on forest produce. KU~~LR Act further provides for
~ '
D statutory vesting, i.e., statutory taking over of property of
hissedar, which happens to be 1st January 1978, i.e. the
statutorily fixed date. Therefore, this forest land becomes
the property of the State Government and is dealt with like
land, which is acquired u/s 4A of KUZALR Act. This
E emerges from a reading o1f r. 41 of the KUZALR Rules
itself. Further, the acquisiticm under the KUZALR Act is a
case of "tak.ing" upon payment of an amount, which is
not intended to be the mark1et price of the rights acquired.
On the other hand, the power of acquisition u/s 37 of the
Indian Forests Act 1927 Ac:t is an acquisition based on
F
the principles of public f)Urpose and compensation.
Thus, not only do the two Acts relate to different subject
matters, but the acquisitions mentioned therein are
conceptually different. [paras 34 and 35) [1040-8-E]
G 2.9 In fact, it is the UP Private Forest Act, 1948, which
~
Is an enactment relatable to Entry 17A of List Ill, i.e.,
'forests', read with Entry 42 of List Ill of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution, i.e., acquisition to the extent
of "vested" forests. It is this Act which covers a field
H similar to that of the Central Act and, therefore, sought
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1021
.
- J
and obtained the permission of the President u/s. 76 of A
the Government of India Act Thus, in the State, there are
two Acts, which are applica le viz. the UP Private Forests
Act, 1948, which is in the same field as the Indian Forest
Act 1927 and the KUZALR Act, which is in respect of a
~
different subject matter. [para 36~7] [1040-H; 1041-A-C] B
2.10 KUZALR Act deals with agrarian reforms and in
the context deals with the private forests and vests the
same with the State and such private forests would,
therefore, be managed by the Goan Sabha. The Indian
Forest Act, 1927 has nothing to do with agrarian reforms
c
but deals with forest policy and management, and,
therefore, is in a different field. Further, there is no direct
~ conflict or collision, as the Indian Forest Act, 1927 only
\
gives an enabling power to the government to acquire
forests in accordance with the provisions of the Land D
Acquisition Act 1894, whereas KUZALR Act results in
vesting of forests from the dates specified in s. 4A of the
KUZALR Act. Consequently, it could be deduced that
none of the three conditions is attracted to the facts of
the instant case. [para 40) [1042-D-G] E

2.11 It is, thus, crystal clear that in the instant matter,
)
no case of repugnancy is made out, as both the Indian
.. Forest Act, 1927 and the KUZALR Act operate in two
different and distinct fields. Accordingly, both the Acts are F
legally valid and constitutional. That being so, there was
no requirement of obtaining any Presidential assent.
Consequently, Article 254(2) of the Constitution has also
no application in the instant case. [para 51] [1048-C-D]
..

Gram Panchayat Jamalpur v. Ma/winder Singh 1985 (2) G
i
=
Suppl. SCR 28 (1985) 3 SCC 661; P.N. Krishna Pal v.
=
State of Kera/a, 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 526 (1995) Suppl.
2 SCC 187; and Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National Textile
Corporation (Maharashtra North), (2002) 8 SCC 182 -
referred to. H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Article 300-A of the Constitution and Compensation:

3.1 The incident of deprivcltion of property within the
meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution normally
occurred mostly in the context of public purpose. Any law
which deprives a pe_rson of his private property for
8
private interest, will be amenable to judicial review. With
regard to claiming compensation, all modern
constitutions which are invariably of democratic character
provide for payment of comp1ensation as the condition to
exercise the right of expropriation. Under Indian
C Constitution, the field of legislation covering claim for
compensation on deprivation of one's property can be
traced to Entry 42 List Ill of the Seventh Schedule. The
Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 deleted Entry 33 -
List I, Entry 36 List II and rewc>rded Entry 42 List Ill relating
D to "acquisition and requisiticining of property". The right
to property being no more a fundamental right, a
legislation enacted under the authority of law as provided
in Article 300A of the Constitution is not amenable to
judicial review merely for alleged violation of Part Ill of the
E Constitution. [paras 61-63] ['1055-B-G]

I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu 2007
=
(1) SCR 706 (2007) 2 SCC 1 - referred to .

.3.2 The Government is empowered to acquire land
F by exercising its various statutory powers. Acquisition of
land and thereby deprivation1 of property is possible and
permissible in accordance with the statutory framework
enacted. Artic:le 31 (2) of the Constitution has since been
repealed by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act 1978.
G It is to be noted that Articl1e 300A was inserted by the
\
Constitution (44th Amendm1ent) Act, 1978 by practically
reinserting Article 31 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore,
right to property is no long1er a fundamental right but a
right envisaged and conferred by the Constitution. [paras
H 67-68] [1057-E-H; 1058-A-B]
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1023

....I
3.3 When the State exercises the power of acquisition A
of a private property thereby depriving the private person
of the property, provision is generally made in the statute
to pay compensation to be fixed or determined according
to the criteria laid down in the statute itself. It must be·
• understood in this context that the acquisition of the B
•' -·
property by the State in furtherance of the Directive
Principles of State Policy was to distribute the material
resources of the community including acquisition and
taking possession of private property for public purpose.
It does not require payment of market value or
indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated.
c
Payment of market value in lieu of acquired property is
not a condition precedent or sine qua non for acquisition.
".. It must be clearly understood that the acquisition and
payment of amount are part of the same scheme and they
D
cannot be separated. It is true that the adequacy of
compensation cannot be questioned in a court of law,
but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory.
[para 68] [1058-C-G]
3.4 Section 12 of the KUZALR Act, 1960 states that E
every hissedar whose rights, title or interest are acquired
u/s. 4, shall be entitled to receive and be paid
compensation. Further, s. 4A of the KUZALR Act makes
~
it clear that the provisions of Chapter II {Acquisition and
Modifications of existing rights in Land), including s.12, F
shall apply mutatis mutandis to a forest land as they
apply to a khaikhari land. Further, the intention of the
legislature to pay compensation is abundantly clear from
the fact that s. 19 itself prescribes that the compensation
payable to a hissedar u/s. 12 shall, in the case of private G
} 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.
Otherwise, it would amount to giving a licence to owners/ H
',
1024 SUPREME COURT R:EPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A persons to exploit forests and get huge return of income
and not to maintain and pre!serve it. The same cannot be
said to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the
KUZALR Act. In fact, the per!sons who are maintaining the
forest and preserving it for future and posterity cannot
be penalised by giving nil c<>mpensation only because of
8
the reason that they in fact chose to maintain the forest
instead of exploiting it. [para 69] [1058-H; 1059-A-E]

Ganga Devi v. State of UP. 1972 (3) SCR 431 = (1972)
3 sec 126 - held inapplicable.
c
3.5 As mandated by Article 300A, a person can be
deprived of his property but in a just, fair and reasonable
manner. In an appropriate 1case the court may find 'nil
compensation' also justified and fair if it is found that the
o State has undertaken to ta••e 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. [para "70] [1059-H; 1060-A-B]
3.6 A law seeking to a1cquire private property for
E public purpose cannot say tlhat 'no compensation' would
be paid. The instant case is a case of payment of 'no
compensation' at all. In the 1case 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
F any stretch of imagination. 1'he property in question was
definitely a productive asset. That being so, the criteria
to determine possible incc1me on the date of vesting
would be to ascertain such compensation paid to
similarly situated owners of neighbouring forests on the
G 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 ss. 18(1)
H (cc) and 19(1) (b) of KUZAL.~~ Act. [para 70] [1060-B-E]
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1025

3.7 Awarding no compensation attracts the vice of A
illegal deprivation of property even in the light of the
. provisions of the Act and, therefore, amenable to writ
jurisdiction. [para 70] [1060-E]

4.1 The validity of the KUZALR Act and particularly 8
of ss. 4A, 18(1) (cc) and 19 (1) (b) thereof is upheld. The
Assistant Collector is directed to determine and award
compensation to the appellants by following a reasonable
and intelligible criterion evolved on the guidelines
provided and in light of the law enunciated by this Court C
in the instant judgment. The appellants will also be
entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation
amount from the date of dispossession till the date of
~ payment provided the possession of the forest was
handed and taken over formally by the respondent
physically and provided the appellant was totally D
deprived of physical possession of the forest. However,
it is clarified that in case the physical/actual j>ossession
has not been handed over by the appellants to the State
government or has been handed over at some
subsequent date i.e. after the date of vesting, the interest E
on the compensation amount would be payable only from
the date of actual handover/physical possession of the
property in question and not from the date of vesting.
' [para 72] [1060-G-H; 1061-A-D]
F
Case Law Reference:
[1965] 1 SCR 82 relied on para 22
1955 SCR 829 relied on para 29
2008 (12) SCR 1083 relied on para 29 G
j
2010 (12) SCR 597 relied on para 33
1979 (3) SCR 254 relied on para 39
1983 (3) SCR 130 referred to para 42 H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
L

A (1994) 3 sec 589 referred to para 43
2005 (2) SCR 302 referred to para 44
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 28 referred to para 52
1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 52Ei referred to para 52
B
(2002) 8 sec 182 referred to para 55
2007 (1) SCR 706 referred to para 63
1972 (3) SCR 431 held inapplicable para 66
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4772 of 1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.1997 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 8927
D of 1988.

K.K. Venugopal, E.C. Agrawala, Rishi Agrawala, Mahesh
Agarwal, Shyam Mohan, Neha Agarwal, Sunil Murarka, Radhika
Gautam for the Appellants.
E
Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, S.R. Singh, Rachna Srivastava,
Kunal Bahri, Avneesh Arputhaim, Mahima Gupta, Manoj K.
Dwivedi and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents.
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
DR. MUKlJNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The present Civil
Appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 12th
August 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in VVrit Petition No. 8927 of 1988, whereby the
G Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellants. Whether the High Court was justified in \
holding that the appellants were not entitled to any
compensation even when their forest land is acquired by the
government, merely because the appellants had not derived any
H income from the said forest, is one of the several important
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1027
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
;..,,j

questions of law which has arisen for consideration in the A
present appeal.

2. The appellant's father Shri P. N. Sarin had in the year
1945 acquired proprietary right in an Estate known as Beni Tai
~ Fee Simple Estate situated in Pargana Chandpur, Tehsil Karan
f B
Prayag, District Chamoli, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to
as "the property in question") which comprised of large tracts
of forest spanning in and around 1600 acres. On the death of
Shri P.N. Sarin in the year 1976 appellants succeeded to the
property in question. By a Gazette Notification dated 21st
December, 1977 under Section 4-A of the Kumaun and
c
Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "KUZALR Act") as amended by the
)
U.P. Act No. 15 of 1978, the rights, title and interest of every
hissedar in respect of forest land situated in the specified areas
ceased with effect from 01st January, 1978 and the same were D
vested in the State Government. A notice issued by the
Assistant Collector, Karan Prayag, District Chamoli, under Rule
2 of the Kumaun and Uttrakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reform Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the KUZALR
Rules") framed under the KUZALR Act was served upon the E
appellants intimating them that effective from 1st January, 1978,
the rights, title and interest of hissedar in respect of the property
,)

_,.
in question had vested in the State Government free from all
encumbrances and it invited objections and statement, if any,
relating to the compensation qua the property in question. F
3. Assailing the aforesaid notice issued by the Assistant
Collector, the appellants preferred a writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution before this Court. On 13th December
1978 while disposing the aforesaid writ petition, this Court G
•I ; passed the following order
"We are of the opinion that it will be better if the Petitioner
files a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the
High Court. This Petition is therefore allowed to be
withdrawn." H
1028 SUPREME COURT HEPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A 4. Subsequently, on 02ncl April 1979 the appellants filed
.
-

objections to the notice issued by the Assistant Collector
challenging the vires of the KLJZALR Act and also stating that
no profit was being made from the property in question. By an
order dated 1·1th April 1988, the Assistant Collector dismissed
B the objections of the appellants by observing that that he had
no jurisdiction to consider the legal validity of the KUZALR Act.
With regard to the issue of compensation, the Assistant
Collector held that since the KUZALR Act does not provide for
a method to compute compem;ation in cases where no income
c has been derived from the forests, the appellants were not
entitled to any compensation.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred a writ
petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad questioning
the legality and validity of the order of the Assistant Collector
D and also challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4A,
18(1)(cc) and 19(1)(b) of the KUZALR Act. By impugned
judgment dated 12th August ·t997, the High Court dismissed
the writ petition.

E 6. Not satisfied with the judgment rendered by the High
Court, the appellants preferned a Special Leave Petition in
which leave was granted by this Court by order dated 11th
September 1B98. By an order passed on 11th August, 2010,
this appeal was directed to be listed before the Constitution
F Bench. This matter was thereafter listed before the Constitution
Bench alongwith other connE!cted matters wherein also the
issue of scope and extent of right under Article 300A of the
Constitution c1f India was one of the issues to be considered.
7. We heard the learned i>enior counsel appearing for the
G parties in respect of all the contentions raised before us. Before
addressing the rival contentions advanced by the parties, it will
be useful to throw some light on the relevant legal position which
is intrinsically complex and requires closer examination.
H 8. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1029
~ --~
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as "UPZALR A
Act") was enacted in the year 1950 and the UPZALR Act was
made applicable to the whole of the State of U.P. except inter-
alia the areas of Kumaon, Uttarakhand. The object of the
~ UPZALR Act as quite evident from its statements and objects
•
are to provide for the abolition of the Zamindari System which B
involves intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the
State in Uttar Pradesh and for the acquisition of their rights, title
and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenure
consequent upon such abolition and acquisition and to make
provision for other matters connected therewith. c
9. Subsequently, on 02nd August 1960 Kumaun and
)
Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960
was enacted. The object of the KUZALR Act is to provide for
the acquisition of the rights, title and interests of persons
between the State and the tiller of the soil in certain areas of D
the Kumaun and Garhwal Divisions and for the introduction of
land reforms therein. It is important to notice that the original
KUZALR Act did not provide for vesting of private forests, and
the definition of the word "land" in Section 3(10) thereof
excluded forest. Section 3(10) of the KUZALR Act reads as E
follows:-
)

... "3(10). "land" means land held or occupied for purposes
connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry
which includes pisciculture and poultry farming but shall not F
include a forest;"

10. However, after the commencement of the Constitution
(42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into effect from 03rd
:January 1977 wherein inter-alia the subject "forests" was
} included in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the G
Constitution as Entry 17A; the U. P. Zamindari Abolition
(Amendment) Act, 1978 (U.P. Act 15of1978) was passed on
30th November 1977 whereby KUZALR Act was amended. In
the preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons
necessitating the amendment, it is stated that the amendment H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
'.
A act amends l<umaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1960 als10. It goes on to state that in the
areas governed by the Principal Act namely the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the rights, title and
interest of ex-intermediaries in respect of their private forests
B were abolished and vested in State. It also states that in the
areas to which the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms. Act, 1960 apply, the hissedars
(Intermediaries) continued to 1:mjoy their rights in respect of their
private forests and therefore it was necessary to remove the
c disparity as well by introducing an amendment in the nature of
Section 4A. Under the aforesaid amendment to the KUZALR
Act, Section 4A was added to the KUZALR Act and private
forests were brought within its purview. It will be useful to
reproduce Section 4A, 18(1)(cc) and 19(1}(b} of the KUZALR
Act which reads as follows:
0
"4-A. Vesting of interest C>f hissedar in the forest land - With
effect from January 1, 1978 the rights, title and interest of
every hissedar in resped of forest land shall cease and
shall vest in the Sta1te Government free from all
E encumbrances, and th13 provisions of this Chapter and
Chapter V shall mutatis mutandis apply to a forest land as
they apply to a khaikari land."

F "18 (1) (cc) in the case~ of a private forest, the average
annual income from such forest for a period of twenty
agricultural years immediately preceding the date of
vesting;"
G XX>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

"19(1) (b) - in the case of a private forest, eight times of
the amount of average annual income from such forest."
11. Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and
H Land Refonns Act, 1960, which is a State legislation received
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1031
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
·:< the assent of the President of India on 1Oth September, 1960. A
The amendment brought in 1978 through UP Act 15 of 1978
to the said Act also received the assent of the President on .
26th April, 1978.

12. At the outset we would like to mention that there is no
~ B
~
specific whisper of defence raised under Articles 31A, 31 Band
31C of the Constitution in the Counter-Affidavit/Reply filed by
the State of Uttarakhand to the writ petition filed by the
appellants in the High Court nor even before this Court but ari
attempt was made to argue the case on those grounds on
behalf of the respondents. As there is no mention of any of the
c
aforesaid Articles of the Constitution in the arguments or
specific pleadings by the respondents in the writ petition, the
f question of deciding the applicability of those provisions of the
Constitution and consequent protection of the Act, therefore,
does not arise. D

13. It was contended by Shri K.K. Venug,opal, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the original
KUZALR Act, 1960 excluded private forests [Section 6(1) (4)],
since the vesting of private forests in the State would not be E
by way of agrarian reform. It was further contended that the
provision for agrarian reforms, therefore, should be a part of
the Act, but, in the present case, the private forests so acquired
-+
under Section 4A of the KUZALR Act becomes the property
of the State which is untenable. F
14. It was further argued that in any event, under Section
4A of the KUZALR Act, it is only the provisions of Chapter-II
and Chapter-V which shall apply to forests land while Rule 41
occurs in Chapter IV and has no application to the forests
covered by Section 4A, and hence Rule 41 will not apply to G
forests acquired under Section 4A of the KUZALR Act. Further,
if Article 31A of the Constitution has no application, then the
law has to be tested against the Constitution as it stood on the
date of its enactment, i.e. the U.P. Amendment Act, 1978
bringing forth amendment to KUZALR Act has to stand the test H
1032 SUPREME COURT f;~EPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It was further ' .
contended that the said Amendment Act would be invalid since
the mere transfer of the private forests to the State would by
itself not be a public purpose and, furthermore, non-grant /total
absence of compensation to thte appellants, while granting full
B compensation to other owners of private forests who have
mismanaged the forests or clE~ar-felled the forests, would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

15. Per contra Shri Parag P. Tripathi, Ld. Additional
Solicitor General strenuously argued that that the entry
C "Acquisition and Requisitionin~1 of property" which was earlier
in the form of Entry 36/List-ll of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution [which was subject to Entry 42/List-111 of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution] and Entry 33/List-I of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution provided only the field of legislative
D power and did not extend to providing or requiring
compensation. The requirement of compensation in the event
of "taking" flows only from Article 31(2) of the Constitution,
which was repealed by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act,
with effect from 26th Septemb«~r. 1979.
E
16. As far as the question of alleged discrimination i.e.
giving compensation to other owners and nil compensation to
the appellants herein is coni::erned, it was contended by
Learned Additional Solicitor General that merely because there +
F may be two compensation laws, which may be applicable, one
of which provides for a higher compensation than the other,
would not by itself make the provisions discriminatory or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
17. It is settled law that Agrarian Reforms fall within Entry
G 18/List-11 read with Entry 42/List-111 of the Seventh Schedule of
the Constitution.

18. In the instant case, it cannot be denied that KUZALR
Act, 1960 is a statutory enactment, dealing with the agrarian
H reforms. Section 4 of the KUZAILR Act provides that in respect
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1033
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
) .:~

of non-forest land, State Government may by notification take A
over the rights, title and interests of hissedar. The land so
released is then dealt with by giving bhumidhari rights/asami
rights to the tillers and thereby effectuating the purpose of
agrarian reforms.

"' • 19. It is important to notice that Section 4A introduced in
si
KUZALR Act by the UP Amendment Act 1978 does not require
any notification but it specifies the date i.e. 01st January 1978
and provides that the right, title and interest of a hissedar in
respect of forest land shall cease and vest by the application
of the statute itself in the State Government. Section 8 of the
c
KUZALR Act mandates that such "hissedar" becomes by
operation of the statute a "bhumidhar". The aforesaid
) amendment was introduced by way of amendment so as to
" bring the said act in parity with the Principal Act, namely UP
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act wherein the rights, D
title and interest of an intermediary (hissedar) was abolished
and vested with the State from the very inception of the said
Act as such provision was part of the principal Act itself.
20. Further, Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules, 1965 framed E
under the KUZALR Act declares that the forests belonging to
the State shall be managed by "Goan Sabha or any other local
authority established" upon a notification issued by the State
~ Government. The Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules, 1965 reads
as follows:- F
"41. Section 41 : Management of land and things
belonging to State - At any time after the appointed date,
the State Government, may, by notification published in the
Gazette, declare that as from the date to be specified, all
or any of the following things, namely, - G

(i) lands, whether ·cultivable or otherwise, except land
for the time being comprised in any holding or grove,
(ii) forests, H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A (iii) trees, other than treies in a holding or in a grove or
in abadi,

(iv) fisheries,

(v) Hats, bazars and rnelas, except hats, bazars and
B melas held on land referred to in Section 7 or which
is for the time being comprised in the holding of a
bhumidar, and

(vi) Tanks, ponds, ferries, water-channels, pathways
C and abadi sites;

Belonging to the State, ~shall be managed by the Goan
Sabha or any other local authority established for the whole
or part of the village in which the things specified in
clauses (i) to (vi) are situate, subject to and in accordance
D with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the
rules made thereunder" as applicable to Kumaun and
Uttarakhand Divisions:

E Provided that it shall be lawful for the State
Government to make th1:! declaration aforesaid subject to
such exceptions or conditions as may be specified in the
notification."

F 21. This being so, it clearly brings out that the vesting of
forest land under the KUZALR Act are directly linked with the
agrarian reforms, as the land as also the forest are managed
by the Goan Sabha or any local authority dealing with the rights
of villagers for betterment of village economy. So, where the
G land acquired by the Statei is to be transferred to a Goan
SabhaNillage Panchayat for its management and use of land
leading to betterment of village eco.nomy, the legislation is in
the nature of agrarian reforms.
22. The aforesaid conclusions arrived at by us find support
H from the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Ranjit
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1035
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA; J.)
Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in A
[1965) 1 SCR 82. In the said decision, the Constitution Bench
has stated thus:-

"..........The scheme of rural development today envisages
..j
not only equitable distribution of land so that there is no
' 8
undue imbalance in society resulting in a landless class
on the one hand and a concentration of land in the hands
of a few on the other, but envisages also the raising of
economic standards and bettering rural health and social
conditions. Provisions for the assignment of lands to village C
Panchayat for the use of the general community, or for
hospitals, schools, manure pits, tanning grounds etc.
ensure for the benefit of rural population must be
.> considered to be an essential part of the redistribution of
holdings and open lands to which no objection is
apparently taken. If agrarian reforms are to succeed, mere D
distribution of land to the landless is not enough. There
must be a proper planning of rural economy and conditions
and a body like the village Panchayat is best designed to
promote rural welfare than individual owners of small
portions of lands ... ." E
23. It is true that Section 4A of KUZALR Act, 1960, as
amended by the UP Amendment Act 1978, provides that
Chapter II and Chapter V of the KUZALR Act would apply
mutatis mutandis and Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules is relatable F
to Chapter IV of the KUZALR Act. However, the necessary
consequence of Section 4A of the KUZALR Act is that the
forest land vests in the State and all that Rule 41 of the KUZALR
Rules does is to provide how the lands- vested in the State
including forest and non-forest land is to be dealt with. Thus, G
Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules clearly applies to forest lands
as it has been specifically so mentioned in the said Rules as
well which are vested in the State under Section 4A of the
KUZALR Act and t~r_e have become the land/property of
the-State1-whiClf-would be managed by the Goan Sabha.
H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A Repugnancy and Article 254 of the Constitution

24. Learned senior counsiel appearing for the appellants
raised two contentions in the context of the inter-relation of the
Indian Forest Act 1927 and thE~ KUZALR Act; firstly, the case
of alleged discrimination in as much as the Central Act i.e. the
8
Indian Forests Act provides for compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894, which is higher; and secondly, the case
of alleged repugnancy.

25. It was submitted that th1e provisions of Section 18(1)(cc)
C read with Section 19(1)(b) of KUZALR Act as amended by the
UP Amendment Act 1978 are repugnant to Section 37 and
Section 84 of the Indian Foreists Act 1927, in so far as no
compensation is provided for under the U.P. Amendment Act,
1978 for private forests which are preserved and protected
D through prudent management, while a private forest which is
neglected or mismanaged to which Section 36 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 applies, can be acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 by paying market value and solatium.

E 26. However, per contra the Learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the re!;pondents contended that the
issue of repugnancy does not a1rise at all in the instant case as
there is in fact no repugnancy between the Central Act i.e. the
Indian Forest Act, 1927 and KUZALR Act in as much as the •
Central Act and KUZALR Act in pith and substance operates
F in different subject matters.
27. It was submitted by Learned Additional Solicitor
General that once the pith and substance of the aforesaid two
legislations viz. KUZALR Act and the Indian Forest Act, 1927
G is examined, the following picture would emerge: firstly, the
KUZALR Act is an enactment under Entry 18/List-11, i.e. "land"
read with Entry 42/List-111 of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. It was further submitted that at the highest, it can
be said that KUZALR Act is relatable tQ Entry 18 of List II and
H 42 of List-Ill of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and if
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND1037
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
,_.,
at all, only incidentally trenches in the legislative field of Entry A
17A/List-lll of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution; and
secondly, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 on the other hand, is in
pith and substance a legislation under Entry 17-A/List-111 i.e.
"Forests" read with Entry 42/List-111 of the Seventh Schedule of
-.(
> the Constitution. B
28. It is trite law that the plea of repugnancy would be
attracted only if both the legislations fall under the Concurrent
List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Under Article
254 of the Constitution, a State law passed in respect of a
subject matter comprised in List Ill i.e. the Concurrent List of
c
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution would be invalid if its
provisions are repugnant to a law passed on the same subject
- ) by the Parliament and that too only in a situation if both the laws
' i.e. one made by the State legislature and another made by the
Parliament cannot exist together. In other words, the question D
of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution arises when
the provisions of both laws are completelytinconsistent with
each other or when the provisions of both laws are absolutely
irreconcilable with each other and it is impossible without
disturbing the other provision, or conflicting interpretations E
resulted into, when both the statutes covering the same field
are applied to a given set of facts. That is to say, in simple
words, repugnancy between the two statutes would arise if there
-.;
is a direct conflict between the two provisions and the law made
by the Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature F
occupies the same field. Hence, whenever the issue of
repugnancy between the law passed by the Parliament and of
State legislature are raised, it becomes quite necessary to
examine as to whether the two legislations cover or relate to
the same subject matter or different. G
;
29. It is by now a well-established rule of interpretation that
the entries in the list being fields of legislation must receive
liberal construction inspired by a broad and generous spirit and
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

~ <

A not a narrow or pedantic approach. This Court in the cases of
Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, reported in AIR 1955 SC 58 and
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, reported in
(2008) 13 sec 5 held that each general word should extend
to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which can fairly and
B reasonably be comprehended within it. In those decisions it was ,'
also reiterated that there shall always be a presumption of
constitutionality in favour of a statute and while construing such
statute every legally permissible effort should be made to keep
the statute within the competence of the State Legislature.
c 30. As and when there is a challenge to the legislative
competence, the courts will try to ascertain the pith and
substance of such enactment on a scrutiny of the Act in
question. In this process, it would also be necessary for the \

courts to 1~xamine the true nature and character of the y

D enactment, its object, its scope and effect to find out whether
the enactment in question is genuinely referable to a field of
the legislation allotted to the respective legislature under the
constitutional scheme. In thE~ aforesaid context we now proceed
to examinei the nature and character of the KUZALR Act and
E examine and scrutinize the same in the context of the Central
Act, namely, the Indian Forests Act, 1927.

31. As noted hereinbefore, Section 4A was introduced in
KUZALR Act by an amendment in the year 1978 as a part of .
F agrarian reforms and not by a separate enactment, as was
done in the case of the UP Private Forests Act, 1948.
Significantly, the agrarian reforms introduced by the UPZALR
Act were not brought about by amending the UP Private
Forests Act, 1948. It is to be noticed that the Indian Forest Act,
1927 and the UP Private Forests Act, 1948 that deal broadly
G
with the same field of, int13r-alia conservation, regulation, etc., ;
of forests. It is to be further noticed that the UPZALR Act and
after the 1978 amendment, KUZALR Act do not deal with
conservation or regulation of forests but with agrarian reforms.
In order to find out the subject matter of an enactment, even in
H
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1039
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

the context of enactments relatable to List Ill of the Seventh A
Schedule of the Constitution, passed by different legislatures,
the doctrine of pith and substance can be relied upon and would
apply.

32. As discussed hereinbefore KUZALR Act is a law 8
principally relatable to Entry 18 (land) of List II read with Entry
42 in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and
only incidentally trenches upon "forest" i.e. Entry 17A/List-lll of
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This is so because
it is an enactment for agrarian reforms and so the basic subject C
matter is "land". Since the land happens to be forest land, it
spills over and incidentally encroaches on-Entry 17A i.e. "forest"
.. )
as well. On the other hand, the Central Act i.e. the Indian
Forests Act 1927 is relatable to Entry 17A read with entry 42,
both of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is
in pith and substance relatable to Entry 17A, as it deals with D
"forests" and not with "land" or any other subject. It only
incidentally spills over in the field of Entry 42, as it deals with
"control overforest land and not property of the Government"
and in that context Section 37, as an alternative to management
of forests under Section 36 of the Indian Forests Act 1927, E
deals with the grant of power to acquire land under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894.

33. This Court in the case of Glanrock Estate Private
Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2010) 10 SCC F
96 observed in paragraph 45 of the Judgment as follows:

".............we are of the view that the requirement of public
purpose and compensation are not legislative
requirements of the competence of legislature to make
laws under Entry 18 List II or Entry 42 List 111, but are G
conditions or restrictions under Article 31 (2) of the.
Constitution as the said article stood in 1969................ .
Lastly, in pith and substance, we are of the view that the
Janmam Act (24 of 1969) was in respect of "land" and
H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A "land tenure" under Entry 18 List II of the Constitution.

34. It is quite clear that th1~ KUZALR Act relates to agrarian
reforms and therefore it deals with the "land"; however, the
Central Act i.e. the Indian Forests Act 1927 deal with "forests"
and its management, preservation and levy of royalty/fees on
8
11 forest produce. KUZALR Act further provides for statutory
vesting, i.e., statutory taking over of property of hissedar, which
happens to be 1st January 1978, i.e. the statutorily fixed date.
Therefore, this forest land becomes the property of the State
C Government and is dealt with like land, which is acquired under
Section 4A of KUZALR Act. This emerges from a reading of
Rule 41 of the KUZALR Rules itself. Further, the acquisition
under the KUZALR Act is a case of "taking" upon payment of
an amount, which is not intended to be the market price of the
rights acquired. On the other hand, the power of acquisition
D under Section 37 of the Indian Forests Act 1927 i.e. the Central
Act is an acquisition based on the principles of public purpose
and compensation.

35. Thus, not only do the aforesaid Acts relate to different
E subject matters, but the acqL1isitions mentioned therein are
conceptually different. The Central Act i.e. the Indian Forests
Act 1927 mainly deals with the management, preservation and
levy of royalty on transmit of forest produce. The Indian Forests
Act 1927 also incidentally provides for and empowers the State·
F Government to acquire any lanai which might be required to give
effect to any of the purposes of the Act, in which case such land
could be acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of
the Indian Forests Act 1927. This however is to be understood
as an incidental power vested cm the State Government which
G could be exercised for giving effoct to the purposes of the Indian
Forests Act 1927. While considering the issue of repugnancy
. what is required to be considered is the legislation in question
as a whole and to its main object and purpose and while doing
so incidental encroachment is to be ignored and disregarded.
H 36. In fact, it is the UP Private Forest Act, 1948, which is
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1041
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
.-' an enactment relatable to Entry 17A of List Ill, i.e., Forests, read A
with Entry 42 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution, i.e., acquisition to the extent of "vested" forests. It
is this Act which covers a field similar to that of the Central Act
and therefore, sought and obtained the permission of the
i .l President under Section 76 of the Government of India Act. B
37. Thus, in the State, there are two Acts, which are
applicable viz. the UP Private Forests Act, 1948, which is in
the same field as the Central Act i.e. the Indian Forest Act 1927
and the KUZALR ACt, which is in respect of a different subject
matter.
c
38. For repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution,
) there is a twin requirement, which is to be fulfilled: firstly, there
~ has to be a "repugnancy" between a Central and State Act; and
secondly, the Presidential assent has to be held as being non- D
existent. The test for determining such repugnancy is indeed
to find out the dominant intention of the both legislations and
whether such dominant intentions of both the legislations are
alike or different. To put it simply, a provision in one legislation
in order to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally E
be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other
legislation, but such partial or incidental coverage of the same
)
area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose
does not attract the doctrine of repugnancy. In nutshell, in order
to attract the doctrine of repugnancy, both the legislations must F
be substantially on the same subject.
39. Repugnancy in the context of Article 254 of the
Constitution is understood as requiring the fulfillment of a "Triple
test" re.iterated by the Constitutional Bench in M. Karunanidhi
v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 @page 443-444, which G
_;)
reads as follows:-
"24. It is well settled that the presumption is always in
favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the onus lies
on the person assailing the Act to prove that it is H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A unconstitutional. Prima facie, there does not appear to us
to be any inconsistency between the State Act and the
Central Acts. Before any repugnancy can arise, the
following conditions must be satisfied:
1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between
B
the Ceintral Act and thEl State Act.
2. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.

3. That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two
c Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct
collision with each othEir and a situation is reached where
it is impossible to obeiy the one without disobeying the
other."
\
40. In other words, the two legislations must cover the
D same field. This has to bei examined by a reference to the
doctrine of pith and substance. In the instant case, the KUZALR
Act deals with agrarian reforms and in the context deals with
the private forests, this vests with the State and would therefore
be managed by the Goan Sabha. The Indian Forest Act, 1927
E which is the existing Central law, has nothing to do with agrarian
reforms but deals with forest policy and management, and
therefore is in a different field. Further, there is no direct conflict
or collision, as the Indian Forest Act, 1927 only gives an
enabling power to the government to acquire forests in
F accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
1894, whereas KUZALR Ai:::t results in vesting of forests from
the dates specified in Section 4A of the KUZALR Act.
Consequently, it could be deduced that none of the aforesaid
three conditions as mentioned in the decision of M.
G Karunanidlli case (supra) is attracted to the facts of the present
case.
41. The only other area where repugnancy can arise is
where the superior legislature namely the Parliament has
H evinced an intention to create a complete code. This obviously
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1043
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
) ....
is not the case here, as admittedly even earlier, assent was A
given under Section 107(2) of the Government of India Act by
(.
~,
the Governor General to the UP Private Forests Act, 1948.

42. This Court succinctly observed as follows in Hoechst
<I
.. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45, at
B
page 87:

"67. Article 254 of the Constitution makes provision first,
as to what would happen in the case of conflict between a
\ Central and State law with regard to the subjects
' enumerated in the Concurrent List, and secondly, for c
resolving such conflict. Article 254(1) enunciates the
normal rule that in the event of a conflict between a Union
) and a State law in the concurrent field, the former prevails
• over the latter. Clause (1) lays down that if a State law
relating to a concurrent subject is 'repugnant' to a Union D
law relating to that subject, then, whether the Union law is
prior or later in time, the Union law will prevail and the State
law shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void. To the
general rule laid down in clause (1 ), clause (2) engrafts an
exception viz. that if the President assents to a State law E
which has been reserved for his consideration, it will
prevail notwithstanding its repugnancy to an earlier law of
)
the Union, both laws dealing with a concurrent subject. In
• such a case, the Central Act, will give way to the State Act
only to the extent of inconsistency between the two, and F
no more. In short, the result of obtaining the assent of the
President to a State Act which is inconsistent with a
previous Union law relating to a concurrent subject would
"i
be that the State Act will prevail in that State and override
' the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to that
,,~
G
State only. The predominance of the State law may
.. however be taken away if Parliament legislates under the
proviso to clause· (2). The proviso to Article 254(2)
empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a
repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a
H
1044 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
,__
A law repugnant to the State law with respect to the 'same
matter'. Even thou~1h the subsequent law made by
Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even ,,
then, the State law will become void as soon as the
subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is
B mad,~. A State law would be repugnant to the Union law
when there is direct conflict between the two laws. Such
repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in the
same field and the two cannot possibly stand together: See
Zave,rbhai Amaidas 11. State of Bombay; M. Karunanidhi t

c v. Union of India and T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe."

43. Again a five-Judge Bench of this Court while
discussing the said doctrine in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1994) 3 sec 589@ pa!ge 630 observed as under: I.
•
D "60. This doctrine of 'pith and substance' is applied when
the legislative compEitence of a legislature with regard to
a particular enactment is challenged with reference to the
entries in the various lists i.e. a law dealing with the subject
in one list is also t01.;1ching on a subject in another list. In
'E such a case, what has to be ascertained is the pith and
subi;tance of the enactment. On a scrutiny of the Act in
question, if found, that the legislation is in substance one
on a matter assigned to the legislature enacting that
statute, then that Act as a whole must be held to be valid •
F notwithstanding any incidental trenching upon matters
beyond its competence i.e. on a matter included in the list
belonging to the other legislature. To say differently,
incidental encroachment is not altogether forbidden."
44. Further in Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educ,ational Society,
G (2005) 3 sec 212, this Court while explaining the scope of >,
Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution and considering the
proposition laid down by this Court in M. Karunanidhi case
(supra) with respect to thE! situations in which repugnancy would
arise, held as follows at page 219:
H
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1045
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
' .....
"9. Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect A
to any of the matters enumerated in List I, notwithstanding
anything contained in clauses (2) and (3) of Article 246.
The non obstante clause under Article 246(1) indicates the
predominance or supremacy of the law made by the Union
•... Legislature in the event of an overlap of the law made by B
Parliament with respect to a matter enumerated in List I
and a law made by the State Legislature with respect to a
matter enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule.

10. There is no doubt that both Parliament and the State
legislature are supreme in their respective assigned
c
fields. It is the duty of the court to interpret the legislations
made by Parliament and the State Legislature in such a
> 1
manner as to avoid any conflict. However, if the conflict is
unavoidable, and the two enactments are irreconcilable,
then by the force of the non obstante clause in clause (1) D
of Article 246, the parliamentary legislation would prevail
notwithstanding the exclusive power of the State
Legislature to make a law with respect to a matter
enumerated in the State List.
E
11. With respect to matters enumerated in List Ill
(Concurrent List), both Parliament and the State Legislature
)
have equal competence to legislate. Here again, the courts
are charged with the duty of interpreting the enactments
of Parliament and the State Legislature in such manner as F
to avoid a conflict. If the conflict becomes unavoidable,
then Article 245 indicates the manner of resolution of such
a conflict."
Thereafter, this Court, in para 12, held that the question of
repugnancy between the parliamentary legislation and the G
, • State legislation could arise in the following two ways:
(SCC p. 220)
"12 .... First, where the legislations, though enacted with
respect to matters in their allotted sphere, overlap and H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

~,

A conflict. Second, where the two legislations are with
respect to matters in the Concurrent List and there is a
conflict In both the situations, parliamentary legislation will
predominate, in the fin;t, by virtue of the non obstante
clause in Article 246(1 ), in the second, by reason of Article
B 254(1). Clause (2) of Article 254 deals with a situation .. •
where the State legislation having been reserved and
having obtained President's assent, prevails in that State;
this auain is subject to the proviso that Parliament can
again bring a legislation to override even such State
c legislation."

45. The aforesaid position makes it quite clear that even
if both the legislations are relatable to List-Ill of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution, the test for repugnancy is whether
the two legislations "exercise their power over the same subject
,. \
D matter... " and secondly whether the law of Parliament was
intended "to be exhaustive to cover the entire field". The answer
to both these questions in the instant case is in the negative,
as the Indian Forest Act 1927 deals with the law relating to
forest transit, forest levy and forest produce, whereas the
E KUZALR Act deals with the land and agrarian reforms.

46, In respect of the Concurrent List under Seventh
Schedulo to the Constitution, by definition both the legislatures
viz. the Parliament and the State legislatures are competent to
F enact a law. Thus, the only way in which the doctrine of pith and
substanGe can and is utilised in determining the question of
repugnancy is to find out whether in pith and substance the two
laws operate and relate to the same matter or not. This can be
either in the context of the same Entry in List Ill or different
G Entries in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In ,
other words, what has to be examined is whether the two Acts
deal with the same field in the sense of the same subject matter
-
or deal with different matters.
47. The concept of repugnancy does not arise as far as
H
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1047
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
;~
the American and Canadian Constitutions are concerned, as A
there is no Concurrent List there, nor is there any provision akin
to Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Repugnancy arises
in the Australian Constitution, which has a Concurrent List and
a provision i.e. Section 107, akin to Article 254 of the
. Constitution of India . B

48. In the Australian cases, the concept of Repugnancy has
really been applied in the context of Criminal Law where for the
same offence, there are two inconsistent and different
punishments, which are provided and so the two laws cannot
co-exist together. To put it differently, an area where the two Acts
c
may be repugnant is when the Central Act evinces a clear
interest to be exhaustive and unqualified and therefore,
) occupies the entire field.

49. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of D
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13
SCC 5, this Court observed as follows at page 23 :

"48. Article 254 of the Constitution succinctly deals with the
law relating to inconsistency between the laws made by
E
Parliament and the State Legislature. The question of
repugnancy under Article 254 will arise when a law made
) by Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature
occupies the same field with respect to one of the matters
• enumerated in the Concurrent List and there is a direct
F
conflict in two laws. In other words, the question of
repugnancy arises only in connection with subjects
enumerated in the Concurrent List. In such situation the
provisions enacted by Parliament and the State
Legislature cannot unitedly stand and the State law will
G
_, have to make way for the Union law. Once it is proved and
established that the State law is repugnant to the Union
law, the State law would become void but only to the extent
of repugnancy. At the same time it is to be noted that mere
possibility of repugnancy will not make a State law invalid,
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A for repugnancy has to exist in fact and it must be showr·
clearly and sufficiently that the State law is repugnant to
the Union law."

50. In a nutshell, whether on account of the exhaustive code
doctrine or whether on account of irreconcilable conflict concept,
8
the real test is that w<>uld there be a room or possibility for both
the Acts to apply. Repugnancy would follow only if there is no
sucti room or possibility.

51. Having discussed the law, as applicable in the
C afomsaid manner and upon scrutiny of subject matters of both
the c:oncurrent Acts, it is crystal clear that no case of repugnancy
is made out in the priesent case as both the Indian Forest Act,
1927 and the KUZALR Act operate in two different and distinct . '
fields as pointed out hereinbefore. Accordingly, both the Acts
D are legally valid and c:onstitutional. That being so, there was no
requirement of obtain1ing any Presidential assent. Consequently,
Article 254(2) of the Constitution has also no application in the
instant case. Howev•~r. it would be appropriate to discuss the
issue as elaborate argument was made on this issue as well.
E Presidential Assent: and Article 254(2) of the Constitution

52. The issue argued was whether "General Assent" can
always be sought and obtained by the State Government.
Refe1rence was made1 to a Constitutional Bench decision of this
F Court in Gram Panchayat Jamalpur v. Ma/winder Singh, (1985)
3 sec 661; which was subsequently further interpreted and
followed in the case of P.N. Krishna Pal v. State of Kera/a,
(1995) suppl. 2 sec 187.

G 53. In the Gram Panchayat Jama/pur case (supra), the
Constitution Bench observed as follows at page 669: ,_

"13. This situation creates a conundrum. The Central
Act of 1950 prevails over the Punjab Act of 1953 by virtue
of Article 254(1) of the Constitution read with Entry 41 of
H the Concurrent List; and, Article 254(2} cannot afford
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1049
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~---.._
assistance to reverse that position since the President's A
assent, which was obtained for a specific purpose, cannot
be utilised for according priority to the Punjab Act. Though
the law made by the Parliament prevails over the law made
by the State Legislature, the interest of the evacuees in the
~
_. Shamlat-deh lands cannot be dealt with effectively by the B
Custodian under the Central Act, because of the peculiar
incidents and characteristics of such lands. The unfortunate
result is that the vesting in the Custodian of the evacuee
interest in the Shamlat-deh lands is, more or less, an
empty formality. It does not help the Custodian to c
implement the provisions of the Central law but, it excludes
the benign operation of the State law.

)
14. The line of reasoning of our learned Brother,
Chinnappa Reddy, affords a satisfactory solution to this
constitutional impasse, which we adopt without reservation D
of any kind. The pith and substance of the Punjab Act of
1953 is "Land" which falls under Entry 18 of List II (State
List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That .
Entry reads thus:
E
"18. Land, that is to.say, rights in or over land, land
tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and
) the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural
land; land improvement and agricultural loans;
• colonisation." F
Our learned Brother has extracted a passage from a
decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ranjit
Singh v. State of Punjab~which took the view that since,
the Punjab Act of 1953 is a measure of agrarian reform,
it would receive the protection of Article 31-A. It may be G
recalled that the Act had received the assent of the
President as required by the first proviso to that article. The
power of the State Legislature to pass laws on matters
enumerated in the State List is exclusive by reason of the
provision contained in Article 246(3). In a nutshell, the H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A position is that the Parliament has passed a law on a
matter which falls under Entry 41 of the Concurrent List,
while the State Legislature has passed a law which falls
under Entry 18 of the State List. The law passed by the
State Legislature, b13ing a measure of agrarian reform, is
B conducive to the welfare of the community and there is no
reason why that law should not have effect in its full
amplitude. By this process, the Village Panchayats will be
able to meet the needs of the village community and
secure its welfare. Accordingly, the Punjab Act of 1953
c would prevail in the! State of Punjab over the Central Act
of 1950, even insofar as Shamlat-deh lands are
concerned."
54. Following the ratio of Gram Panchayat Jamalpur case
(supra) this Court in th•e case of P.N. Krishna Pal v. State of
- D Kera/a, (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 187 observed as follows at page
200.
"14. In Jamalpur Gram Panchayat casf#. the facts were
that specific assent of the President was sought, namely,
E Article 31 and Article 31-A of the Constitution vis-a-vis
Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. The President had given specific assent. The
Shamlat-deh lands in Punjab were owned by the
proprietors of the village, in proportion to their share in the
property of the lands held by them. After the partition, the
•
F
proprietary inten3sts in the lands of the migrants and
proportionate to share of their lands vest in the Union of
India. The question arose whether the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 prevails over
G
Evacuee Property Act, 1950. It was contended that in view
of the assent givEm by the President, the State Act prevails
over the Central Act. This Court.in that context considered
the scope of the limited assent. Chandrachud, C.J.
speaking for majority, held that the Central Act, 1950
prevails over the Punjab Act, 1953 and the assent of the
H
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 1051
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)
,--.. President which was obtained for a specific purpose A
cannot be utilised for according precedence to the Punjab
Act. At page 42, placitum 'B' to 'E', this Court held that

"the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the
.. .. Constitution is not a matter of idle formality. The President
B
has, at least, to be apprised of the reason why his assent
is sought if, there is any special reason for doing so. If the
assent is sought and given in general terms so as to be
effective for all purposes, different considerations may
legitimately arise."
c
Thus it is clear that this Court did not intend to hold that it
is necessary that in every case the assent of the President
in specific terms had to be sought and given for special
)
reasons in respect of each enactment or provision or
provisions. On the other hand, the observation clearly D
indicates that if the assent is sought and given in general
terms it would be effective for all purposes. In other words,
this Court observed that the assent sought for and given
by the President in general terms could be effective for all
purposes unless specific assent is sought and given in E
which event it would be operative only to that limited extent."

55. Further, in the case Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. v. National
Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North), (2002) 8 SCC 182,
this Court made it clear that it was not considering; whether the
F
assent of the President was rightly or wrongly given?; and
whether the assent given without considering the extent and the
nature of the repugnancy should be taken as no assent at all?
It observed as follows at page 203:

"27. In this case, we have made it clear that we are G
not considering the question that the assent of the
President was rightly or wrongly given. We are also not
"" considering the question that - whether "assent" given
without considering the extent and the nature of the
repugnancy should be taken as no assent at all. Further, H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A in the aforesaid case, before the Madras High Court also
the relevant prop9sal made by the State was produced.
The C<lurt had specifically arrived at a conclusion that Ext.
P-12 shows that Section 10 of the Act has been referred
to as the provision which can be said to be repugnant to
B the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the .
Transfer of Property A.ct, which. are existing laws on the
concurrent subject. After observing that, the Court has
raised the presumption. We do not think that it was
necessary to do so. In any case as discussed above, the
c essential ingredients of Article 254(2) are: (1) mentioning
of the entry/entries with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Colilcurrent List; (2) stating repugnancy
to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament and
the State law and reasons for having such law; (3)
thereafter it is requirE~d to be reserved for consideration
D
of the President; and (4) receipt of the assent of the
President."
56. It is in this contEixt, that the finding of this Court in
Kaiser-I-Hind (P) Ltd. (supra) at para 65 becomes important
E to the effect that "pointed :attention" of the President is required
to be drawn to the repugn:ancy and the reasons for having such
a law, despite the enactment by Parliament, has to be
understood. It summarize:s the point as follows at page 215 as
follows:
F
"65. The result of the foregoing discussion is:
1. It cannot be held that summary speedier procedure
prescribed under the PP Eviction Act for evicting the
tenants, sub-tenants or unauthorised occupants, if it is
G reasonable and in conformity with the principles of natural
justice, would abridge the rights conferred under the
Constitution.
2. (a) Article 254(2) contemplates "reservation for
H consideration of the President" and also "assent".
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1053
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
t ·-<
Reservation for consideration is not an empty formality. A
Pointed attention of the President is required to be drawn
to the repugnancy between the earlier law made by
Parliament and the contemplated State legislation and the
reasons for having such law despite the enactment by
. Parliament. B

(b) The word "assent" used in clause (2) of Article
254 would in context mean express agreement of mind to
what is proposed by the State.

(c) In case where it is not indicated that "assent" is c
qua a particular law made by Parliament, then it is open
to the Court to call for the proposals made by the State
.....' for the consideration of the President before obtaining
assent.
'
D
3. Extending the duration of a temporary enactment does
not amount to enactment of a new law. However such
extension may require assent of the President in case of
repugnancy."

57. If it is to be contended that Kaiser lays down the E
proposition that there can be no general Presidential assent,
then such an interpretation would be clearly contrary to the
()bservation of the Bench in Para 27 itself where it states that
• rt is not examining the issue whether such an assent can be
taken as an assent. F

58. Such an interpretation would also open the judgment
to a charge of being, with respect, per in curium as even though
while noting the Jamalpur case - (1985) 3 sec 661, it
overlooks the extracts in the Jamalpur case dealing with the G
_l aspect of general assent:

• "Th~\assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution is not a matter of idle formality. The President
has, at least, to be apprised of the reason why his assent
is sought if, there is any special reason for doing so. If the HI
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A assent is sought and given in general terms so as to be
..
~

effective for all purposes, different considerations may
legitimately arise. But if, as in the instant case, the assent
of the President is, sought to the Law for a specific
purpose, the efficacy of the assent would be limited to that
B purpose and cannot be extended beyond it."

Article 300A of the Constitution and Compensation

59. After passing of the Constitution (Forty Forth)
Amendment Act 1978 which deleted Article 19(1 )(f) and Article
c 31 from the Constitution and introduced Article 300A in the
Constitution, the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act inserted
in Part XII, a new chapter: "Chapter IV - Right to Property" and

D
inserted a new Article 300A, which reads as follows:-

"No person shall be deprived of property save by authority
of law"
-
60. It would be uselful to reiterate paragraphs 3, 4 and 5
of the Statement of Obj1~cts and Reasons of the Constitution
(44th Amendment) Act which reads as follows:-
E
"3. In view of the special position sought to be given to
fundamental rights, the right to property, which has been
the occasion for more than one Amendment of the
Constitution, would cease to be a fundamental right and ~

F become only a legal right. Necessary amendments for this
purpose are being made to Article 19 and Article 31 is
being deleted. It would, however, be ensured that the
removal of property from the list of fundamental rights would
not affect the right of minorities to establish and administer
G educational instituti1)ns of their choice.

4. Similarly, the right of persons holding land for personal
cultivation and within the ceiling limit to receive
compensation at the market value would not be affected.
•
H 5. Property, while ceasing to be a fundamental right, would,
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1055
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
' ~
however, be given express recognition as a legal right, A
provision being made that no person shall be deprived of
his property save in accordance with law."

61. The incident of deprivation of property within the
...
-i meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution normally occurred
B
mostly in the context of public purpose. Clearly, any law, which
deprives a person of his private property for private interest,
will be amenable to judicial review. In last sixty years, though
the concept of public purpose has been given quite wide
interpretation, nevertheless, the "public purpose" remains the
most important condition i.n order to invoke Article 300A of the c
Constitution.
} 62. With regard to claiming compensation, all modern
constitutions which are invariably of democratic character
provide for payment of compensation as the condition to D
exercise the right of expropriation. Commonwealth of Australia
Act, a French Civil Code (Article 545), the 5th Amendment of
the Constitution of U.S.A. and the Italian Constitution provided
principles of "just terms", "just indemnity", "just compensation"
as reimbursement for the property taken, have been provided E
for.

63. Under Indian Constitution, the field of legislation
• 1:;overing claim for compensation on deprivation of one's
property can be traced to Entry 42 List Ill of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. The Constitution (7th Amendment) F
Act, 1956 deleted Entry 33 List I, Entry 36 List II and reworded
Entry 42 List Ill relating to "acquisition and requisitioning of
property". The right to property being no more a. fundamental
dght, a legislation enacted under the authority of law as provided
~ I in Article 300A of the Constitution is not amenable to judicial G
1review merely for alleged violation of Part Ill of the Constitutio!'l.
' Article 31 A was inserted by the Constitutional (1st
Amendment) Act, 1951 to protect the zamindari abolition laws.
The right to challenge laws enacted in respect of subject matter
13numerated under Article 31A (1) (a) to (g) of the Constitution H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A on the ground of violation of Article 14 was also constitutionally ••
excluded. Further, Article 31 B read with Ninth Schedule of the
Constitution protects all laws even if they are violative of the Part
Ill of the Constitution. However, it is to be noted that in the
Constitutional Bench de,cision in /. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil
. B Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1, this Court has held that the laws added ..
to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, by violating the
constitutional amendments after 24.12.1973, would be
amenable to judicial review on the ground like basic structure
doctrine.
c 64. It has been contended by Id. senior counsel appearing
for the appellants that thE~ action taken by the respondents must
satisfy the twin principh~s viz. public purpose and adequate
compensation. It has been contended that whenever there is
arbitrariness by the Stat1~ in its action, the provisions of Article
D 14, 19 and 21 would get attracted and such action is liable to
be struck down. It was i;ubmitted that the KUZALR Act does
not provide for any principle or guidelines for the fixation of the
compensation amount in a situation when no actual income is
being derived from the property in question. It was further
E submitted that the inherent powers of public purpose and
eminent domain are embodied in Article 300A, and Entry 42
List Ill, "Acquisition and Requisitioning of Property" which
necessarily connotes that the acquisition and requisitioning of
property will be for a public use and for compensation and
F whenever a person is deprived of his property, the limitations
as implied in Article 300A as well as Entry 42 List Ill will come
into the picture and the Court can always examine the legality
and validity of the legislation in question. It was further submitted
that awarding nil compensation is squarely amenable to judicial
G review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.
,_
65. It is the .case of the State that the statutory scheme
under the UPZALR Act, 1950 is provided in Section 39(1) (e)
in respect of forests. The said section provides for two methods
for computation of compensation, namely, the average annual
H
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1057
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
f -..

income of last 20 to 40 years as provided in Section 29(1) (e) A
(i) and the estimate of annual yield on the date of vesting as
provided in Section 39(1) (e) (ii). It was further argued that in
respect of KUZALR Act, the same U.P. Legislature which had
the example of Section 39(1)(e) deliberately dropped the
.;
.. . second sub-clause and limited the compensation only to the · B
' average annual income of the last 20 years. From this it was
1
.. . argued that where there is no annual income, there would be
no compensation.

66. It had been further argued that since the expression
"average annual income" under Section 39(1) (e) (i) has already
c
been judicially interpreted in the case of Ganga Devi v. State
of U.P. (1972) 3 sec 126 to mean "actual" annual income and
> not an estimate, therefore, if the forest land is not earning any
-· I
income, then in the statutory formula set out in KUZALR Act, it
would not be entitled to any compensation. D

67. The Government is empowered to acquire land by
exercising its various statutory powers. Acquisition of land and .
thereby deprivation of property is possible and permissible in
accordance with the statutory framework enacted. Acquisition E
is also permissible upon exercise of police power of the State.
--, It is also possible and permissible to acquire such land by
)
1~xercising the power vested under the Land Acquisition Act.
• This Act mandates acquisition of land for public purpose or
public use, which expression is defined in the Act itself. This F
Act also empowers acquisition of land for use of companies
~-
also in the manner and mode clearly stipulated in the Act and
i the purpose of such acquisition is envisaged in the Act as not
public purpose but for the purpose specifically enumerated in
Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act. But, in case of both the G
-r i aforesaid manner of acquisition of land, the Act envisages
___., paymentof compensation for such acquisition of. land and
deprivation of property, which is reasonable and just.
68. Article 31 (2) of the Constitution has since been
repealed by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act 1978. It is H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A to be noted that Article 300A was inserted by the Constitution
..
(44th Amendment) Act, '.1978 by practically reinserting Article
31 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore, right to property is no longer
a fundamental right but a right envisaged and conferred by the
Constitution and that also by retaining only Article 31 (1) of the
B Constitution and specifically deleting Article 31 (2), as it stood.
In view of the aforesaid position the entire concept to right to
property has to be vieweid with a different mindset than the
mindset which was prevalent during the period when the
concept of eminent domain was the embodied provision of
c fundamental rights. But Ewen now as provided under Article
300A of the Constitution the State can proceed to acquire land
for specified use but by enacting a law through State legislature
or by Parliament and in the manner having force of law. When
the StatE~ exercises the power of acquisition of a private I '

property thereby deprivin!J the private person of the property,
D
provision is generally made in the statute to pay compensation
to be fixed or determined according to the criteria laid down in
the statute itself. It must be understood in this context that the
acquisition of the property by the State in furtherance of the
Directive Principles of Stat1~ Policy was to distribute the material
E resources of the community including acquisition and taking
possession of private property for public purpose. It does not
require payment of market value or indemnification to the owner
of the property expropriatE~d. Payment of market value in lieu •
of acquired property is not a condition precedent or sine qua
F non for acquisition. It must be clearly understood that the
·acquisition and payment of amount are part of the same
scheme and they cannot be separated. It is true that the •
adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned in a court of !""
law, but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory.
G
I •
69. Further, it is to bo clearly understood that the stand
taken by the State that the right, title or interests of a hissedar ......
could be acquired without payment of any compensation, as
in the present case, is contrary to the express provisions of
H KUZALR Act itself. Section 12 of the KUZALR Act, 1960 states
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1059
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
l I that every hissedar whose rights, title or interest are acquired A
-under Section 4, shall be entitled to receive and be paid
compensation. Further, Section 4A of the KUZALR Act makes
it clear that the provisions of Chapter II (Acquisition and
Modifications of existing rights in Land), including Section 12,
'i shall apply mutatis mutandis to a forest land as they apply to B
a khaikhari land. Further, the intention of the legislature to pay
compensation is abundantly clear from the fact that Section 19
itself prescribes that the compensation payable to a hissedar
under Section 12 shall, in the case of private forest, be eight
times the amount of average annual income from such forest. c
In the instant case, income also includes possible income in
case of persons who have not exploited the forest and have
rather preserved it. Otherwise, it would amount to giving a
> licence to owners/persons to exploit forests and get huge return
Iii •:>f income and not to maintain and preserve it. The same cannot
D
be said to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the
aforesaid KUZALR Act. In fact, the persons who are
maintaining the forest and preserving it for future and posterity
Gannot be penalised by giving nil compensation only because
of the reason that they were in fact chose to maintain the forest
instead of exploiting it. E

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 F
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. G
7~
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 H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

' A appropriate case the Court may find 'nil compensation' also i •

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 c:ompensation' at all. As already held 'a
B law seeking to acquire private property for public purpose •
cannot say that 'no compensation' would be paid. The present
case is a case of payment of 'no compensation' at all. In the
case at hand, the forei;t land which was vested on the State by
operation of law cannot be said to be non-productive or
c 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 neiighboring forests on the date of vesting.
Even otherwise, revenue authority can always make an ,
0
estimation of possibh~ income on the date of vesting if the
property in question h1ad 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
E 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.

71. That being so, the omission of the Section 39(1) (e)
F (ii) of the UPZALR Act 1950 as amended in 1978 is of no
consequence since the UPZALR Act leaves no choice to the
State other than to pay compensation for the private forests
acquired by it in accordance with the mandate of the law.

G 72. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly
allowed while upholding the validity of the Act and particularly
Sections 4A, 18(1) (cc) and 19 (1) (b) of the KUZALR Act, we
direct the second respondent, i.e. Assistant Collector to
determine and award compensation to the appellants by
H following a reasonable and intelligible criterion evolved on the
RAJIV SARIN & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1061
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
' \
aforesaid guidelines provided and in light of the aforesaid law A
enunciated by this Court hereinabove. The appellants will also
be entitled to interest @ six percent per annum on the
compensation amount from the date of dispossession till the
date of payment provided possession of the forest was handed
and taken over formally by the Respondent physically and B
provided the appellant was totally deprived of physical
possession of the forest. However, we would like to clarify that
in case the physical/actual possession has not been handed
over by the appellants to the State government or has been
handed over at some subsequent date ·i.e. after the date of c
vesting, the interest on the compensation amount would be
payable only from the date of actual handover/physical
possession of the property in question and not from the date
> of vesting. In terms of the aforesaid findings, the present appeal
stands disposed of. No costs. D
q_p_ Appeal partly allowed.