LexSTATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER versus NILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, A STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER ~ v. NILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD. OCTOBER 12, 1987 B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND M.M. DU1T, JJ.] '""( Kera/a 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. c -~ 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 or fuel necessary for the manufacture or tea. It held that the question whether Eucalyptus plantations raised in a tea estate would D be forest or not, bad no bearing to the extent or tbe 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 or 1971) and that the Eucalyptus plantations in ques· tion were not private forest and did not vest In the Government under f ~ E the Act. Relying on an earlier Division Bench decision that in the con- text 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 bad been spent for agricultural operations, the High Court held that the State bad not succeeded in establishing that the land in which Eucalyptus bad been planted could be said to be forest land and F 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 fo1rest' or not In terms of section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assign- ment) Act, 1971. G Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, HELD: The Eucalyptus trees in the area concerned under dispute ~ were raised not for forest but for supply or fuel necessary for the manu- facture of tea which Is the industry carried on by the respondent- H Company. The High Court was, therefore, right in the facts and 444 - STAIB OF KERALA v. NILGIRI IBA ESTAIBS [MUKHARJI, .I.] 445 circumstances of the instant case, in holding that the land in question was Qutside the purview of the vesting provisions Cl!ntained in th~ A Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. [449B-C) Malankara Rubber and Product Co. & Ors. etc."· State of Kera/a & Ofs. etc., [1973].1SCR399, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16085 of 1986. Ftom the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1986 of t!te Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No. 482 of 1981. G. Vishwanatha Iyer and P .K. Pillai for the Petitioners. SoliJ. Sorabjee, M.N. Jha and K.L. John for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave B c D 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 E operation in 1971. On 24th June, 1981 by a common order, the Forest Tribunal, Palghat held in favour of the respondent company, t!te 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 F 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 sub- section (2) of section 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956)- G (i) any land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXVII of 1949), applied H B c D E F G H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R. immediately before the appointed day excluding- (A) lands which are gardens or nilams as defined in the Ker_ala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1of1964): (B) lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamom and lands used
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.