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.