LexSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR. versus THE GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING (WVG.) CO. LTD. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
671 A STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. v. THE GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING (WVG.) CO. LTD. ETC. September 18, 1973. 8 [A. N. llAY, C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. c D E G H BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] Co11!.titu1io11 of India, 1950-Artic!e 31A-The Kera/a Prirate Forests (Vesting and Assig11111e11t) Act, 1971-Act if entitled to the protection of article 31A-Prirate forest held in Ja11n1an right-If necessary to sliolv they are agricul- tural lands wirliin Jllb. clause (iii) of article 31A-Agrarian Refonn, nieaning. The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignn1ent) Act (1\ct 26 of 1971) purported to acquire forest lands held on J ann1an right. \Vithout payment of compensation, for implementing a schen1e of agrarian reform by assigning lands On registry or by \\'ay of lease to the poorer sections of thy rural agricultural population. A full bench of the Kerala High Court (Reporled in A.I.R. 1973, Kerala 63) held that tbe provisions of the. A.ct were not protected by article 31-A of the Constitution and accordingly declared the Act unconstitutional and void. The High Court concluded that forest lands in the State of Kerala could not generally be "regarded as -agricultural lands and, therefore, could not be the sub- ject of agrarian reform and-that the schen1e of agrarian reform envisaged by the Act was not real or genuine but only illusory. The appeals and the petiti~ns con· cerned the question whether the Act could qualify for the protection of article 31A(l) of the Constitution. It was contended on behalf of the State of Kerala that what is included in the expression ·estate' is specified in sub. clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (2) of article 31A and, since the sub-clauses are disjunctive it would be enough for the State to sho'v that the law related to land covered by an "estate" falling in at least one of the sub-clauses, that since private forests were held in jan1na1n right they \VOuld be an 'estate' within the meaning of sub-clause (i) and that if the law envisaged a measure of agrarian reform it \Vas not neces- sary for the- State to establish additionally that forest lands were similar lands des· cribed in sub-clause. (iii), that is to say, lands held for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. The petitioners contended that private forests could not be converted i11to agricultural lands by a mere legislative fiat containetl in the Preamble of the Act. because, forest lands are lands in which forests grow spontaneously and naturally without human effort or skill and are quite distinct from agricultural lands which, however defined, must contain the element of tilling the soil for sowing and plant- ing. It was pointed out that in sub-clause (iii) of Article :.1A (2)(a) a forest land maY be regarded as an agricultural land only when that land is held or let for pur- poses 'of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. Assuming that forest lands _ were 'estate' within the definition. it was further contended that their acquisition was not for implementing any scheme of agrarian reform, but for a collateral purpose, namely, to increase the revenue of the State by exploiting the forest wealth. · · · Allowing the appeals and dismissing the petitions, HELD: that the Act was protected by Article 31A(I) of the Constitution. (I) The forest lands in the State of Kerala have attained a peculiar character owing to their geography and climate and the evidence available shows that vast areas of these forests are still capable of supporting a large agricultural popula- tion. They are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes. It is manifest that when the legis- lature stated in the Preamble that the private forests are agricultural land, they merely wanted to convey that they are iands which by and large could be pru- dently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes. [682H, 683C] 3-392SCl/74 672 SllPREMl' COURT REPORTS [ 1~74] 1 s.c.R. V. V enugopala Vanna Rajua v. Co11trolJer of f'5/ate Duty, Kera/a [1969] K.L.T. 320, relied on. (ii) The private forests being held in Ja111nan1 right, and Janman right being ttn ·estate' are 1iable to be acquired by the State under article 31A(l) (a) as a necessary step in the implementation of agrarian reform. Section 3 of the im-- pugned A\'.t vests the ownership and possession of all private f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.