Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHERversusNILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD.
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 278
- Decided
- 12 October 1987
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
Holding
Eucalyptus plantations used as fuel in a tea estate are not private forest and do not vest in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.
Summary
The State of Kerala sought to have eucalyptus plantations in a tea estate declared private forest under Section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, so that the land would vest in the Government. The respondent, Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd., argued that the trees were planted solely as fuel for tea manufacture, not for forest purposes. The Forest Tribunal held that the plantations were agricultural in nature and did not constitute a private forest, a view affirmed by the Kerala High Court. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "private forest" in the Act, noting that lands on which human skill and labour are employed for agricultural operations are excluded. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court concluded that the eucalyptus trees were not forest land and therefore fell outside the vesting provisions of the Act. Consequently, the petition for special leave was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether eucalyptus trees planted in a tea estate for fuel purposes constitute a "private forest" under Section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, thereby vesting the land in the Government.
Legislation cited
Subjects
private forestvestingKerala Private Forests Acteucalyptus plantationtea estateland reformforest lawspecial leave petition
Judgment
,
STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER ~
A
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.
B
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. c
SoliJ. Sorabjee, M.N. Jha and K.L. John for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
SABYASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave
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-
G
( 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)-
(i) any land to which the Madras Preservation of Private
Forests Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXVII of 1949), applied 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
B tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamom and
lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation cf
such crops or for the preparation of the same for the
market.
Explanation-Lands used for the construction of office
buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for workmen,
c hospitals, schools ani;I playgrounds shall be deemed to be
lands used for purposes ancillary to the cultivation of such
crops; ~
(C) lands which are principally cultivated with cashew or
D other fruit bearing trees or are principally cultivated with
any other agricultural crop and
(D) sites of buildings and lands appurtenant to and neces-
sary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buil-
dings; )-._.,
E
(ii) any forest nor owned by the Government, to which the
Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 did not
apply, including waste lands which are enclaves within
wooded areas.
-
F (2) in relation to the remaining areas in the State of Kerala
any forest not owned by the Government including waste
lands which are enclaves within wooded areas;
)--
Explanation-For the purposes of this clause, a land shall
be deemed to be a waste land notwithstanding the existence
G thereon of scattered trees or shrubs;
The Forest Tribunal in this case held, inter alia, in its order as t--
follows:-
"The entire property in O.A. 39/79 (26.90 hectares cor-
H responding to 66.50 acres) admittedly contains eucalyptus
TATE OF KERALA v. NILGIRI TEA ESTATES [MUKHARJI. J.J 447
trees raised by the petitioner as also cardamom plants here A
and there. The Superintendent in charge of the petitioner-
estate had deposed to that effect. The Range Officer ex-
amined as R. W. 1 has stated that the disputed land on
0 .A. 39/79 lie in two bits and in both the bits there are
eucalyptus trees raised by the petitioner, that they are aged
between 12 to 15 years and are having a height of about 30 B
ft. It is also stated by him that at present there are
cardamom plants but they are raised after 1971."
The Tribunal went on to record as follows:
"But, the respondents have conceded that those trees are C
not of natural growth but they have been grown there with
human skill, expenses and labour. That these trees are
planted 'for purposes of fuel necessary for the manufacture
of tea also admits of no doubt."
The Tribunal concluded by stating:· D
"The question whether eucalyptus plantations raised in a
tea estate would be a forest or not has no bearing to the
extent of the cultivation. It should be remembered that
eucalyptus trees were raised in the instant case not for rais-
ing a forest but for supply of fuel necessary for the manu· E
facture of tea. Hence I have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the areas planted with eucalyptus trees in a
tea estate do not form part of a vested forest or a private
forest and therefore it is excluded from the purview of Act
• 26/71. In other words, the entire lands involved in O.A .
39/79 and 20 acres out of the property shown as item 1 in F
O.A. 146/78 which are eucalyptus plantations are not pri-
vate forest and they have not vested in the Government."
On this basis, the High Court came to conclusion that the Tribunal was
right. The High Court in its order observed:-
G
"The question whether forest lands planted with
eucalyptus by employing agricultural operations would be
forest was considered by this court in the decision of a
Division Bench reported in State of Kera/a v. Anglo Ameri-
can Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd., [1980] KLT 215. The
same question was considered over again by a Full Bench H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
of this Court in the decision reported in State of Kera/a. v.
Moosa Haji, [1984) KLT 494. In the former decision, it was
held:-
"As we have indicated in the absence of a definition of
the term 'forest' in Act 26 of 1971 we should take
B notice of the general meaning of the tetm as used in
common parlance. Whether one would understand a
eucalyptus plantation within a Tea estate or adjoining ."(
a Tea estate as forest in common parlance would
necessarily be the test. This calls for consideration of
the scope of the term 'forest"
c In the contest in which the term "Private forests" has
been used in Act 26 of 1971, it is evident that it ap-
i'
plies to lands other than those on which human skill,
labour and resources have been spent for agricultural
operations.
D
In the light of what we have adverted to we do
not think that the State has succeeded in establishing
that the land in which eucalyptus has been planted in
the Tea plantations could be said to be forest land
E and if so we should agree with the decision of the
Forest Tribunal that it would be outside the purview
of the vesting provisions in Act 26 of 1971."
We are of the opinion that in view of the finding recorded by the
Tribunal, the decision and judgment of the High Court cannot be
F impugned. It is instructive that in respect of proceedings initiated
under the Land Reforms Act, this Court in Malankara Rubber and
Product Co. & Ors. etc. v. State of Kera/a & Ors. etc., [1973] 1 SCR
399 observed at page 426 as follows:-
"Lands under eucalyptus or teak which are the result of
agricultural operations normally would be agricultural
lands. They would certainly not be forests but the state-
ments in the petitions seem to suggest that operations were
carried hereon for the express purpose of growing these +-
plants and trees. However, lands which are covered by
eucalyptus or teak growing spontaneously as in a jungle or
a forest, would be outside the purview of acquisition."
STATE OF KERALA v. NILGIRI TEA ESTATES [MUKHARJI, !.] 449
It is true as noted above that this qbservation was made in the context A
of Land Reforms Act but it was held that lands on which eucalyptus or
teak are planted would be agricultural lands. In this case it has been
found as noted before that eucalyptus trees it\ the area concerned
under dispute were raised in the instant case not for a forest but for
supply of fuel necessary for the manufacture of tea, which is the in-
B
dustry carried on by the respondent company.
In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of provisions of the
Act 26 of 1971, we are of the opinion that the view of the High Court is
right in the facts and circumstances of this case and as such calls for no
interference. The application is accordingly dismissed with no order as
to costs. C
f- We had in this matter advantage of the assistance of Shri Vish-
wanath Iyer, counsel for the petitioners and Shri Soli Sorabji, counsel
for the respondent.
N.P.V .. Petition dismissed. D
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "private forest"Sign in to search