http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/10/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR   59            1988 SCR  (1) 444  1988 SCC  Supl.   79     JT 1987 (4)   119  1987 SCALE  (2)787

ACT:      Kerala Private  Forests (Vesting  and Assignment)  Act, 1971: Section  2(f)-Eucalyptus trees  planted in  tea estate for fuel  purposes for manufacture of tea-Whether area forms part of ’private forest’ and vests in Government.

HEADNOTE:      The Forest  Tribunal, Palghat,  found  that  Eucalyptus trees raised  by the respondent in the lands in dispute were not for  raising a  forest, but for supply of fuel necessary for the  manufacture of  tea.  It  held  that  the  question whether Eucalyptus  plantations raised in a tea estate would be forest  or not,  had no  bearing to  the  extent  of  the cultivation, that the area planted with the Eucalyptus trees in a  tea estate  did not  form part  of a  vested forest or private forest and was, therefore, excluded from the purview of the  Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) and that the Eucalyptus plantations in question were  not private  forest and  did not  vest in the Government under  the Act.  Relying on  an earlier  Division Bench decision  that  in  the  context  in  which  the  term ’private forest’  had been  used in  the Act,  it applied to lands other  than those  on which  human skill,  labour  and resources had  been spent  for agricultural  operations, the High  Court  held  that  the  State  had  not  succeeded  in establishing that  the land  in which  Eucalyptus  had  been planted could  be said to be forest land and agreed with the decision of the Tribunal.      On the question whether land planted with Eucalyptus in tea estate  in the  Travancore area of Kerala was a ’private forest’ or  not in  terms of  section  2(f)  of  the  Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.      Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, ^      HELD: The  Eucalyptus trees in the area concerned under dispute were  raised not  for forest  but for supply of fuel necessary for  the manufacture  of tea which is the industry carried on  by the  respondent Company.  The High Court was, therefore, right in the facts and 445 circumstances of  the instant case, in holding that the land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

in  question   was  outside   the  purview  of  the  vesting provisions contained  in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. [449B-C]      Malankara Rubber and Product Co. & ors etc. v. State of Kerala & Ors. etc., [1973] 1 SCR 399, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 16085 of 1986.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  28.7.1986  of  the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No. 482 of 1981.      G.  Vishwanatha   Iyer  and   P.K.   Pillai   for   the Petitioners.      Soli J.  Sorabjee, M.N.  Jha  and  K.L.  John  for  the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. This  is  an  application  for leave to  appeal under  article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment  and order  of the  High Court  of Kerala dated 28th July,  1986. The  question involved  in  this  case  is whether where  Eucalyptus is  planted in the Travancore area of Kerala  is a  private forest  or not. Act 26 being Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 came into operation in 1971. On 24th June, 1981 by a common order, the Forest Tribunal,  Palghat held  in favour  of the respondent company, the  Nilgiri Estate  Ltd.  that  certain  areas  of forest did  not vest  in the  government under the said Act. The High  Court affirmed  that finding.  The  propriety  and validity of  that decision  are sought  to be  challenged by this application  under article 136 of the Constitution. The factual  parameters   have  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  the background of  the relevant  provisions of the Act. The said Act 26 by section 2(f) provides, inter alia, as follows:           "(f) "private forest" means-           (1) in  relation to  the Malabar district referred           to in  subsection (2)  of section  5 of the States           Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956)-           (i) any  land to  which the Madras Preservation of           Private Forests  Act, 1949  (Madras Act  XXVII  of           1949), applied 446           immediately before the appointed day excluding-           (A) lands  which are  gardens or nilams as defined           in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964):           (B) lands  which  are  used  principally  for  the           cultivation  of   tea,  coffee,   cocoa,   rubber,           cardamom  or  cinnamom  and  lands  used  for  any           purpose ancillary to the cultivation such crops or           for the preparation of the same for the market.           Explanation-Lands used  for  the  construction  of           office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for           workmen, hospitals,  schools and playgrounds shall           be deemed  to be lands used for purposes ancillary           to the cultivation of such crops;           (C) lands  which are  principally cultivated  with           cashew  or   other  fruit  bearing  trees  or  are           principally cultivated with any other agricultural           crop and           (D) sites  of buildings  and lands  appurtenant to           and necessary  for the convenient enjoyment or use           of, such buildings;           (ii) any  forest nor  owned by  the Government, to           which the  Madras Preservation  of Private Forests

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

         Act, 1949  did not  apply, including  waste  lands           which are enclaves within wooded areas.      (2) in  relation to the remaining areas in the State of      Kerala any forest not owned by the Government including      waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas:           Explanation-For the  purposes of  this  clause,  a land shall  be deemed to be a waste land notwithstanding the existence thereon of scattered trees or shrubs;      The Forest  Tribunal in  this case held, inter alia, in its order as follows:-           "The entire property in O.A. 39/79 (26.90 hectares           corresponding to  66.50 acres) admittedly contains           eucalyptus 447           trees raised  by the  petitioner as  also cardamom           plants  here  and  there.  The  Superintendent  in           charge of  the petitioner  estate had  deposed  to           that effect.  The Range officer examined as R.W. 1           has stated  that the  disputed land  on O.A. 39/79           lie in  two bits  and in  both the  bits there are           eucalyptus trees  raised by  the petitioner,  that           they are  aged between  12 to  15  years  and  are           having a  height of about 30 ft. It is also stated           by him  that at  present there are cardamom plants           but they are raised after 1971."      The Tribunal went on to record as follows:           "But, the  respondents have  conceded  that  those           trees are not of natural growth but they have been           grown there with human skill, expenses and labour.           That these  trees are planted for purposes of fuel           necessary for  the manufacture  of tea also admits           of no doubt." The tribunal concluded by stating:-           "The  question   whether  eucalyptus   plantations           raised in  a tea  estate would  be a forest or not           has no  bearing to  the extent of the cultivation.           It should be remembered that eucalyptus trees were           raised in  the instant  case  not  for  raising  a           forest but  for supply  of fuel  necessary for the           manufacture of  tea. Hence I have no hesitation to           come to the conclusion that the areas planted with           eucalyptus trees  in a tea estate do not form part           of  a  vested  forest  or  a  private  forest  and           therefore it  is excluded  from the purview of Act           26/71. In  other words,  the entire lands involved           in O.A.  39/79 and  20 acres  out of  the property           shown  as   item  1   in  O.A.  146/78  which  are           eucalyptus plantations  are not private forest and           they have not vested in the Government." On this  basis, the  High Court  came to conclusion that the Tribunal was right. The High Court in its order observed:-           "The question  whether forest  lands planted  with      eucalyptus by  employing agricultural  operations would      be forest  was considered by this court in the decision      of a  Division Bench  reported in  State of  Kerala  v.      Anglo American  Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd., [1980] KLT      215. The  same question  was considered over again by a      Full Bench 448      of this  Court in  the decision  reported in  State  of      Kerala.v. A  Moosa Haji,  [1984] KLT 494. In the former      decision, it was held:-           "As  we   have  indicated  in  the  absence  of  a           definition of  the term ’forest’ in Act 26 of 1971           we should  take notice  of the  general meaning of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

         the term  as used  in common parlance. Whether one           would understand  a eucalyptus plantation within a           Tea estate  or adjoining a Tea estate as forest in           common parlance  would necessarily  be  the  test.           This calls  for consideration  of the scope of the           term ’forest"           In the contest in which the term "Private forests"           has been  used in  Act 26  of 1971,  it is evident           that it  ap plies  to lands  other than  those  on           which human  skill, labour and resources have been           spent for agricultural operations.                In the  light of  what we have adverted to we           do not  think that  the  State  has  succeeded  in           establishing that the land in which eucalyptus has           been planted  in the Tea plantations could be said           to be  forest land  and if so we should agree with           the decision  of the Forest Tribunal that it would           be outside  the purview  of the vesting provisions           in Act 26 of 197 1. "      We are  of the  opinion that  in view  of  the  Finding recorded by  the Tribunal,  the decision and judgment of the High Court  cannot be  impugned. It  is instructive  that in respect of proceedings initiated under the Land Reforms Act, this Court  in Malankara  Rubber and Product Co. & Ors. etc. v. State of Kerala & Ors. etc., [1973] 1 SCR 399 observed at page 426 as follows:-           "Lands under  eucalyptus or  teak  which  are  the           result of  agricultural operations  normally would           be agricultural lands. They would certainly not be           forests but  the statements  in the petitions seem           to suggest that operations were carried hereon for           the express  purpose of  growing these  plants and           trees.  However,   lands  which   are  covered  by           eucalyptus or  teak growing  spontaneously as in a           jungle or  a forest,  would be outside the purview           of acquisition." 449 It is  true as noted above that this observation was made in the context A of Land Reforms Act but it was held that lands on  which   eucalyptus  or   teak  are   planted  would   be agricultural lands.  In this case it has been found as noted before that  eucalyptus trees  in the  area concerned  under dispute were raised in the instant case not for a forest but for supply  of fuel  necessary for  the manufacture  of tea, which is the industry carried on by the respondent company.      In view  of the  aforesaid facts  and in  the light  of provisions of the Act 26 of 1971, we are of the opinion that the view  of the  High Court  is  right  in  the  facts  and circumstances  of  this  case  and  as  such  calls  for  no interference. The  application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.      We had  in this  matter advantage  of the assistance of Shri Vishwanath  Iyer, counsel  for the petitioners and Shri Soli Sorabji, counsel for the respondent. N.P.V.                                   Petition dismissed. 450