Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
K.M.S UBAIDA AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1998
BENCH:
G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal arises out of the leave granted by the
Kerala High Court by order dated January 12, 1984 in
M.F.A.No.338/1978. The short question that arises for
decision of this Court is whether the land where systematic
teak plantation is not natural one, will be exempted from
the purview of private forests under the Kerala Private
Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It appears that
under Section 2 of the said Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, the private forest means in relation to
Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of Section
5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, any land to which
the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 applied
to the lands in question immediately before the appointed
day. But certain lands have been excluded from the
definition of Private Forests under the Kerala Act and
Clause (C) of sub-section (2) (1) (F) is relevant for our
consideration. Clause (C) contains that when lands are
principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit-bearing
trees or are principally cultivated with any other
agricultural crop will be exempted from the purview of
private forests under the Kerala act.
Mr.Iyer, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that Clause (C) exempts not only cashew
or other fruit bearing trees but also any other land which
are principally used for cultivation of agricultural crop.
In the instant case, the teak has been grown by systematic
human efforts and it is not a case of natural growth of the
forest. Hence, such land must be held to be the land
principally cultivated with agricultural crop. Therefore,
such land will be exempted from the purview of private
forests within the meaning of said Kerala Act.
We are, however, unable to accept such submission of
the learned counsel. Every agricultural activity has not
been exempted under the said Kerala Act and Clause (C) only
protects lands which are principally cultivated with cashew
or fruit bearing trees and principally cultivated with
’agricultural crop’. Agricultural crop as commonly
understood does not convey the agricultural activity in
teak plantation. Therefore, such activity cannot be brought
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
within the purview of the said Clause (C).
The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our
attention to a decision of this Court in Gwalior Rayons Silk
Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Vs. Custodian of Vested Forests,
Palghat and another (1990 (Suppl.) SCC 785). In the said
case, the question of vesting as forest lands in Malabar
District which was initially governed by the Madras
Preservation of Private Forests act, 1949 prior to the
Reorganisation of States was taken into consideration in the
context of applicability of Kerala Forest Act. In the said
cases, agricultural activity in growing Eucaliptus trees was
considered. It has been held that the land where such
agricultural activity was held will not be exempted from the
purview of the said Forest Act in Kerala under Clause (C).
The ratio of the said decision of this Court applies in the
facts of this case. Therefore, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. The
appeal , therefore, fails and is dismissed but there will be
no order as to costs.