STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 29-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
541
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
v.
M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 903 of 2011)
OCTOBER 29, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971:
ss. 2(a), 2(f), 3, 6 and 8 – Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – ss.
2(47) and 81 – Private forests – Meaning of – Nature of land –
Determination of, by Taluk land Board – Evidentiary value of –
Held: Where the Land Board arrives at a determination about the
character of lands, under the Act of 1963, that becomes a piece of
evidence for the purposes of the Vesting Act – Unless a contrary
state of affairs shown to exist, the Board’s order to be given due
weight – On facts, rounds of litigation between the State and the
respondent – Respondent claiming that they were owner of 1534.40
acres of land which was acquired by sale, and forest authorities
attempted to take possession of large areas of land occupied by the
respondent on the ground that they were private forests and were
vested in the State – Draft statement by the Taluk Land Board,
wherein respondent shown to hold 1576 acres of land, of which
1537 acres fell under the exempted category, and that respondent
was eligible to retain the balance extent within the ceiling area;
and that there was no surplus land to be surrendered to the State –
High Court correctly invoked the Board’s order and held that an
area of slightly over 100 hectares and 155.90 acres was forest land
that vested in the State, and the rest of the 1534.40 acres land had
to be treated as plantation, and thus, belonged to the respondent –
High Court placed reliance on preliminary and final report by the
Commissioner, draft statement of the land, respondent’s auditor’s
balance sheet, agricultural income tax, sales tax return, and
employees provident fund – All these materials, support the
conclusions of the High Court, based on plausible (and not an
unreasonable) inference of the overall analysis of the evidence on
the record – Thus, the order of the High Court does not call for
interference – Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 541
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Discretionary Jurisdiction –
Exercise of – Held: Where two plausible views on the conclusions
that can be drawn from facts on the record exist – View taken by the
High Court being a plausible one, interference with the findings of
the High Court is not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 2(f)(1) of the Kerala Private Forests
(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 defines “private forest”, in
relation to Malabar District. Section 2(f)(1)(i) says that “private
forest” means any land to which the Madras Preservation of
Private Forests Act, 1949 applied immediately before the
appointed day, viz., 10.05.1971. It thereafter, enacts that certain
lands are excluded from the definition of “private forest” falling
under sub-clauses (A) to (D). Lands, which are gardens or nilams
(defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963), are excluded
from the definition of “private forest” under the Vesting Act under
sub-clause (A). Likewise, lands used principally for the cultivation
of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon and lands
used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or
for the preparation of the same for the market are excluded from
the definition of “private forest” by reason of sub-clause (B).
Explanation to Section 2(f)(1)(I)(B) further showed that lands used
for the purpose of construction of office buildings, go-downs,
factories, quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and
playgrounds were deemed to be lands used for purposes ancillary
to the cultivation of such crops. Therefore, Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B)
evidences that lands used principally for cultivation of certain
crops and lands used for construction of buildings for the purpose
of running and maintaining a plantation are excluded from the
definition of “private forest”. Under Section 3 of the Vesting Act
under which private forests were to vest in the Government.
[Para 29][563-D-H]
State of Kerala v Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing
and Weaving Co. 1974 (1) SCR 671; Parameswara
Sastrigal K.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors 2008 2 ILR
371; Bhawani Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
& Ors. 1991 (2) SCC 463 : [1991] 1 SCR 550; Gwalior
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Ltd v. The Custodian of Vested
Forest

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