Case: The State Of Kerala  Vs. The Pullangode Rubber And Produce Co.Ltd

or cinnamon or that they were being used on that day for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or that they were being used on that day for the preparation of such crops for the market.11. We now turn to the question whether land used for providing firewood to a rubber estates smoke-houses and its workers is land that is not a private forest within the meaning of the said Act. The question is now answered by the judgment of this Court in Pioneer Rubber Plantation, Nalambur, Kerala State v. State of Kerala and another, 1992(4) SCC 175. The majority of the Bench of three learned Judges held that it appeared reasonable that the area "required for the purpose of growing firewood trees for fuel in the factories and smoke-houses (of rubber plantations) as well as for supply to the employees of the estate for their domestic use should be excluded from the definition of the term `private forest." 12. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that land used for supplying firewood for the smoke-houses of the company was excludable from the definition of `private forest under the said Act. The consequential question is whether the High Court was right in making an assessment thereof as indicated above and fixing an extent of 75 acres in this behalf. The answer must be in the negative.13. As demonstrated above by an analysis of the definition, it was for the company to plead and establish by evidence that on 10th May, 1971 the land admeasuring 594.78 acres or some specific part thereof was being used for supplying firewood to its smoke-houses and its workmen.14. As the companys claim statement before the Tribunal, which we have quoted above, shows, it had not even made an averment that the area of 594.78 acres or some specific part thereof was being used on 10th May, 1971 for supplying firewood to its smoke-houses or its workmen. Even so, and concentrating very properly on the date 10th May, 1971, the Tribunal discussed the companys evidence, oral and documentary, in some detail. It found, and rightly, that the evidence did not establish that this acreage of land or any specific part thereof was being used by the company for these purposes on 10th May, 1971. In the absence of evidence the companys claim must fail in regard to the entire area of 594.78 acres.15. In the same proceeding, the company contended before the Tribunal that two areas of land (R.S. 1032 admeasuring 28.40 acres and R.S. 1964 admeasuring 37.75 acres) were wooded areas in enclaves surrounded by its rubber plantation and that these should not be considered private forests. The Tribunal noted the evidence of the companys witness that if such land was treated as a forest vested in the State, the companys surrounding plantation would be jeopardised. The Tribunal found that it could not be held that these were lands utilised for any purpose covered by the definition quoted above and held them to be private forests. The High Court, in appeal, noted that the wooded area of 28.40 acres in R.S. 1032 was an enclave surrounded by rubber trees but that the area of 37.75 acres in R.S. 739 lay on the boundary of the companys estate. The High Court, being unsatisfied with the evidence in this behalf, rejected the companys claim in regard to these two areas of the said land, and the company is in appeal. Â?37Â?3 Å16. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the company to the judgment of this Court in Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others, 1991(2) SCC 483. Among other claims in this matter was a claim by the appellant tea company that certain areas of land within its plantation were excluded from the purview of the said Act. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court said that the said Act, the Kerala Forest Act, the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act considered plantations as well. Therefore, while applying the said Act, the same principle was applicable. Accordingly, it was reasonable to take division of the plantation as a unit and apply the principle aforementioned. Based thereon, this Court held that plots admeasuing 25.08 acres, 1.65 acres, 3.82 acres, 10.70 acres, 10.58 acres, 8.10 acres and 24.84 acres formed small portions of the respective divisions of the plantation and could be taken to have been principally cultivated. Accordingly, these plots were found to be exempt from vesting under the said Act.17. We respectfully agree, having regard particularly to the words in the definition, "lands which are used principally for the cultivation of.....", where the large part of a parcel of land is used for plantation of the specified crops leaving only a small part within not so cultivated, it is reasonable to say that the parcel of land as a whole is used principally for the cultivation of the specified crops. The principle would apply in the instant case to the land admeasuring 28.40 acres in R.S. 1032 because it is an enclave within the companys plantation of 2148.28 acres. The area of 37.75 acres in R.S. 1964 is on the periphery of the companys plantation and there is nothing to suggest that it is bounded elsewhere also by a rubber plantation. The exemption, therefore, cannot be made applicable to R.S. 1964.18. Before parting with these appeals we must mention that they were ordered to be heard by a three Judge Bench because it had been contended, based upon the decision in the case of Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. (supra), that a cultivated plantation was excluded from the operation of the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act. No such argument has been advanced before us, even after we pointed out the referral order. It is, therefore not necessary for us to consider the correctness of the decision in Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. in its entirety.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]12. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that land used for supplying firewood for theof the company was excludable from the definition of `private forest under the said Act. The consequential question is whether the High Court was right in making an assessment thereof as indicated above and fixing an extent of 75 acres in this behalf. The answer must be in the negative.13. As demonstrated above by an analysis of the definition, it was for the company to plead and establish by evidence that on 10th May, 1971 the land admeasuring 594.78 acres or some specific part thereof was being used for supplying firewood to itsand its workmen.14. As the companys claim statement before the Tribunal, which we have quoted above, shows, it had not even made an averment that the area of 594.78 acres or some specific part thereof was being used on 10th May, 1971 for supplying firewood to itsor its workmen. Even so, and concentrating very properly on the date 10th May, 1971, the Tribunal discussed the companys evidence, oral and documentary, in some detail. It found, and rightly, that the evidence did not establish that this acreage of land or any specific part thereof was being used by the company for these purposes on 10th May, 1971. In the absence of evidence the companys claim must fail in regard to the entire area of 594.78 acres.15. In the same proceeding, the company contended before the Tribunal that two areas of land (R.S. 1032 admeasuring 28.40 acres and R.S. 1964 admeasuring 37.75 acres) were wooded areas in enclaves surrounded by its rubber plantation and that these should not be considered private forests. The Tribunal noted the evidence of the companys witness that if such land was treated as a forest vested in the State, the companys surrounding plantation would be jeopardised. The Tribunal found that it could not be held that these were lands utilised for any purpose covered by the definition quoted above and held them to be private forests. The High Court, in appeal, noted that the wooded area of 28.40 acres in R.S. 1032 was an enclave surrounded by rubber trees but that the area of 37.75 acres in R.S. 739 lay on the boundary of the companys estate. The High Court, being unsatisfied with the evidence in this behalf, rejected the companys claim in regard to these two areas of the said land, and the company is in appeal. Â?37Â?3  Å16. Our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the company to the judgment of this Court in Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others, 1991(2) SCC 483. Among other claims in this matter was a claim by the appellant tea company that certain areas of land within its plantation were excluded from the purview of the said Act. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court said that the said Act, the Kerala Forest Act, the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act considered plantations as well. Therefore, while applying the said Act, the same principle was applicable. Accordingly, it was reasonable to take division of the plantation as a unit and apply the principle aforementioned. Based thereon, this Court held that plots admeasuing 25.08 acres, 1.65 acres, 3.82 acres, 10.70 acres, 10.58 acres, 8.10 acres and 24.84 acres formed small portions of the respective divisions of the plantation and could be taken to have been principally cultivated. Accordingly, these plots were found to be exempt from vesting under the said Act.17. We respectfully agree, having regard particularly to the words in the definition, "lands which are used principally for the cultivation of.....", where the large part of a parcel of land is used for plantation of the specified crops leaving only a small part within not so cultivated, it is reasonable to say that the parcel of land as a whole is used principally for the cultivation of the specified crops. The principle would apply in the instant case to the land admeasuring 28.40 acres in R.S. 1032 because it is an enclave within the companys plantation of 2148.28 acres. The area of 37.75 acres in R.S. 1964 is on the periphery of the companys plantation and there is nothing to suggest that it is bounded elsewhere also by a rubber plantation. The exemption, therefore, cannot be made applicable to R.S. 1964.18. Before parting with these appeals we must mention that they were ordered to be heard by a three Judge Bench because it had been contended, based upon the decision in the case of Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. (supra), that a cultivated plantation was excluded from the operation of the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act. No such argument has been advanced before us, even after we pointed out the referral order. It is, therefore not necessary for us to consider the correctness of the decision in Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. in its entirety.