Holding

Clause (c) does not exempt systematic teak plantations; such land remains a private forest.

Summary

The appellants challenged a decision that land under systematic teak plantation was classified as private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. They argued that clause (c) of Section 2(2)(1)(c) exempts lands principally cultivated with any agricultural crop, and that teak plantation qualifies as such. The respondents contended that the exemption applies only to cashew, other fruit‑bearing trees, or crops traditionally understood as agricultural, not to timber species like teak. The Supreme Court, relying on the earlier decision in Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. v. Custodian of Vested Forests (1990), held that teak plantation does not fall within the meaning of "agricultural crop" under clause (c) and therefore remains within the definition of private forest. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether land under systematic teak plantation is exempt from the definition of private forest under clause (c) of Section 2(2)(1)(c) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

Legislation cited

Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971s. Section 2(2)(1)(c)
Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949
States Reorganisation Act, 1956s. Section 5

Subjects

private forestKerala Private Forests Actagricultural cropteak plantationexemptionforest lawstatutory interpretation

Judgment

K.M.S. UBAIDA AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

MARCH 25, 1998

B
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

' ~ i.
Kera/a Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 : Section
2(2)(/)(c)- 'Agricultural Crop '-Meaning of Private Forest-Definition of-
/Exclusion of certain lands from-Teak grown by systematic human efforts- C
Growth of teak not natural one-Question whether such land exempted from
the purview of private forest-Held Clause (c) only protects lands which are
principally cultivated with 'argicultural crop '-Agricultural crop as
commonly understood does not convey the agriculatural activity in teak
plantation-Therefore, such activity cannot be brought within the purview D
of the said Clause (c).

Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) ·Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested
Forests Pa/ghat and anr., [1990) Suppl. SCC 785, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3497 of E
1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.84 of the Kerala High Court
in M.F.A. No. 338 of 1978.

T.L. Viswanthan Iyer, and A.S. Nambiar, P.K. Manohar and Mrs. Shanta F
Vasudevan for the Appellants.

K.M.K. Nair and Vipin Nair for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
This appeal arises out of the leave granted by the Kerala High Court
f. by order dated January 12, 1984 in M.F.A.No.33811978. The short question
that arises for decision of this Court is whether the land where systematic teak
plantation has been made and the growth of teak plantation is not natural one,
will be exempted from the purview of private forests under the Kerala Private H
441
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] 2 S.C.R.

A Fore5ts (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It appears that under Section 2
of the said Act, unless the context otherwise requires. the private forest
means in relation to Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of Section
5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. any land to which the Madras
Preservation of Private Forests Act 1949 applied to the lands in question
B immediately before the appointed day. But certain lands have been excluded
from the definition of Private Forests under the Kerala Act and Clause (c) of
sub-section (2) (I) (F) is relevant for our consideration. Clause (c) contains
that when lands are principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit-bearing
trees or are principally cultivated with any other agricultural crop will be
C exempted from the purview of private forests under the Kerala act.

Mr. Iyer, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that Clause (c) exempts not only cashew or other fruit bearing
trees but also any other land which are principally used for cultivation of
agricultural crop. In the instant case, the teak has been grown by systematic
D human efforts and it is not a case of natural growth of the forest. Hence, such
land must be held to be the land principally cultivated with agricultural crop.
Therefore, such land will be exempted from the purview of private forests
within the meaning of said Kerala Act.

E We are, however, unable to accept such submission of the learned
counsel. Every agricultural activity has not been exempted under the said
Kerala Act and Clause (c) only protects lands which are principally cultivated
with cashew or fruit bearing trees and principally cultivated with 'agricultural
crop'. Agricultural crop as commonly understood does not convey the
F agricultural activity in teak plantation. Therefore, such activity cannot be
brought within the purview of the said Clause (c):

The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to a
decision of this Court in Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v.
Custodian of Vested Forests, Pa/ghat and another, [1990] Suppl. SCC 785. In
G the said case, the question of vesting as forest lands in Malabar District
which was initially governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests
Act, 1949 prior to the Reorganisation of States was taken into consideration
in the context of applicability of Kerala Forest Act. In the said cases, agricultural
activity in growing Eucaliptus trees was considered. It has been held that the
H land where such agricultural activity was held will not be exempted from the
K.M.S. UBAIDA v. STATE 443
purview of the said Forest Act in Kerala under Clause (c). The ratio of the A
said decision of this Court applies in the facts of this case. Therefore, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court.
The appeal , therefore, fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to
costs.
B
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.