REV. FR. K. C. ALEXANDER versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 16-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S.N. DWIVEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
REV. FR. K. C. ALEXANDER 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
August 16, 1973 
[P. 11\GANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
399 
Travancbre l:...a11d Conservancy 4.ct (4 of 1916), s. 9-'0ther product raised 
011 /a11d' if iflcludes trees. 
' 
Trespasser-Ri'ght to compensation for trees planted on a11'1ther's_ land. 
There was a dispute regarding the ownership of certain land between a 
1enmi family and the State Government, and the Jenmi family filed a '$uit 
for declaration of its title. 
While the dispute was pending, the appellant •p-
plied to the Conservator of Forests for registration of the lands in his name 
under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act, 1916, bu~ the 
applic~tion was 
rejected. 
After the suit filed by the Jenmi family \Vas dismissed, the ~pellant 
who was in possession of the land, was dispossessed. The appellan 
there· 
after. filed a suit for the value of improvements affected by him on t .e )and 
by planting trees and constructing a building. 
The trial Court decreed the suit for the value of the building but rejected" 
the rest of claim. The High Court dismissed his appeal. 
D 
In appeal to this Court. it was contended that : (I) there was no order 
of forfeiture of improvements as requited under s. 9 of the Act; (2) the 
appellant was ·entitled to compensation under 
general 
law: 
and 
(3) 
the 
appellant was· not served with a notice to quit as required by s. 9 of the 
Act to enable 'him to cut and remove the trees. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( l) Section 9 provides for two 
notices to .be 
given : 
(a), one 
notice to be given to the person fn unauthorised occupatio.n of governn1ent 
land to vacate within a reasonable time, and (b) another for forfeiture of any 
crop or other product raised on the land or to remove any building or other 
structure within a reasonable time. 
The "'·ords ';aised on the land' 
qualify 
hath the 'crop' and 'other product', and so, the words 'other proJuct' have to 
be read in the oontext of the word 'crop'. 
So read. trees would not be in-
cluded within the meaning of 'other product raised on the land in s. 9 of 
the Act, and therefor:e. there is no obligation on the respondent to give notice 
of forfeiture. [405D-'-H; 406E] 
Clark and Another v. Gaskarth. 8 Taunt 431, app1ied. 
(2) (a) The trial court and High Court found on the evidence that the 
appellant's possessior. commenced only after his application fo'r registration 
was rejected, and that t.he improvements, if any, were 
effected by him 
only 
thereafter, with full knowledge that the ti'le to the 
lands 
\VJ.s 
in 
disi:ute. 
Therefore, he could not be said to be a bona fide trespasser. It ·~ould not ·also 
be C"Jntended that nevertheless he v,ras a bona fide tresrasser en~itleJ. to com-
pensation on the basis that he entered upon the land with a bona fide intention 
of improving the land. 
Such a contention would give validity to a dangercus 
principle which will condone all acts of deliberate and wrongful trespass, be-
cause, any person desparate enough to trespass on other man's land without any 
claim of title can always plead that he had a bona fide .intention of improving· 
the land whether or not the owner of the land wanted the imprCvement. 
The 
maxim of English law quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit ( v,rhatever is affixed 
to the soil belongs to the soil) is not applicable to India. but that h not to say 
that wrongful trespasser can plant trees on som:one else's land and claim a 
right to those trees after he is evicted. [406E-H; 407A] 
Vall!lbdas Narainji v. Development Officer, Bandra, A.I.R. 
1929 P.C. 
163, applied. 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1974 j 1 s.C.R. 
(b) In any case. the position of a trespasser cannot be better than that of 
a lawful tenant, who, havi:i,g lost bis possession cannot claim compensation 
or damages for anything_ erected on the land or any improvements made 
therein. [407HJ 
· 
A 
(3) There are ~ clear allegations in the plaint that the appellant was 
evicted \vithout notice. 
No issue had been framed regarding L~ notice of 
eviction not being giYen and no application for framing such an issue v.·as 
Il 
filed in ihe trial court, or the High Court or this Court. Therefore, the appel~ 
!ant, who was not a mere tresp_asser but a:ie who had deliberately entered 
upon the land knowing fully well that he had no right, claim or title to the 
land,_ or any manner of right to enter the land. and who had been rightly 
evicted as a trespasser, should not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.