SRI BAGAWATI TEA ESTATES LTD. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 832 · Decided: 03-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI BAGAWATI TEA ESTATES LTD. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.) 
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971-Constitu-
tional validity-Failure to fully carry out objectives as contemplated by Section 
](}-Whether renders enactment void or unconstitutional-Held, No-Forest 
C (Conservation) Act does not make implementation of State Act impossible. 
Section 8-C(3 )-Review-Words 'due to failure to produce relevant date 
or other particu/ars'-Meaning and scope. 
Soon after the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 
D 1971 was enacted by the Kerala Legislature to acquire forest lands held 
on Janman right as a measure of agrarian reform which had the effect of 
vesting the ownership and possession of private forests in the Government, 
the affected owners filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the 
constitutional validity of the enactment. A fuH Bench of the Kerala High 
E Court struck down the Act holding it to be outside the protective umbrella 
of Article 31A of the Constitution of India. The State of Kerala questioned 
the judgment in this Court. The Constitution Bench by its order dated 
18.9.1973 allowed the appeals and upheld the validity of the enactments. 
Subsequently, some of the affected owners applied for exemption of 
p 
certain portions of the private forests u/s 3. Their applications were 
rejected against which they filed appeals which too were dismissed. Special 
Leave Petition filed before this Court were also dismissed. After all the 
aforesaid proceedings were over, the present writ petitions were filed the 
petitioners for a declaration that the Kerala Act is unconstitutional and 
for a direction restraining the State of Kerala and its officers from 
G enforcing the provisions of the Act with respect to the private forests owned 
by them prior to their vesting in the government and for restoration of 
possession of the private forests to the erstwhile owners. The main ground 
urged by the petitioners was that the Act has failed as a measure of 
agrarian reform. It was submitted that the Act contemplates distribution 
H of the forest lands so acquired to specified categories of persons for the 
832 
BAGAWATITEAESTATESv. G.O.I. 
833 
purpose of cultivation and that though a period of more than 20 years had A 
elapsed since the _Act was enforced, the forests lands had not been assigned 
as contemplated by Section 10, except perhaps a minor portion; that with 
the enactment of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980, and its subsequent 
amendment in 1988 the assignment of the forest land had become impos-
sible. Since the main objective of the Act has failed, it was submitted that B 
the entire Act fails and the private forests must be restored to their 
erstwhile owners. 
In the connected appeal preferred against the judgment of the 
Kerala High Court allowing a review petition filed by the State and setting 
aside its earlier judgment, the appellant stated that he entered into an C 
agreement to take on lease 550 acres of land in janman, he was put in 
possession of the entire extent; that he raised coffee and cardomum before 
May 10, 1971, the date on which the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Assign-
ment) Act, 1971 came into force; that he had been paying land tax and 
basic tax for the said plantation from 1974 onwards after the plantation D 
started yielding. Contending that the said extent had vested in the govern-
ment u/s 2 of the Act, he stated that the authorities encroached upon the 
said extent whereupon he instituted proceedings u/s 8 of the Act before the 
appropriate Tribunal alleging that the said land did not vest in the 
Government u/s 3 for the reason that before the date of coming into force 
of the Act it had ceased to be a private forest within the meaning of Section E 
2(f). The Forest Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim against which the 
State filed an appeal which was dismissed. The argument of the State that 
the said agreement of lease having been entered into without obtaining 
previous sanction of the Collector, as required by the Madras Preservation 
of Private Forests Act, the lease was not only void but the alleged agree-
F 
ment of lease and delivery of possession pleaded by the appellant was not 
true, was rejected by the Division Bench. The Bench held that the appellant 
had indeed come into possession of the land on 7.8.1963 and had also 
converted the said extent into

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