Judgment Case ID: 6418

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 698 of 1980. From the Judgment dated the 2.5.1979 of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. 346 of 1978. M.M. Abdul Khader	 Darshan Singh and Praveen Kumar for the Appellant. P.S. Poti	 P.K. Pillai (N.P.)	 T.T. Kunnhikannan and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY	 J. This appeal by leave from a Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court raises a short question of construction of the plain words of a term 'private forest ' as defined in a statutory enactment called "The Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act	 197 1 (called shortly "The Vesting Act"). The High Court has decided the question in favour of the State and against the appellant. The judgment of the High Court has since been reported in AIR 1980 Kerala 137. The view expressed by the High Court has been subsequently affirmed by another Full Bench in State of Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd.	 AIR 1981 Kerala 1 and reiterated by a larger Bench of five Judges in State of Kerala vs K.C. Moosa Haji & Ors.	 	 Losing the construction argument	 the appellant has appealed to this Court. The facts of the case are immaterial for the purpose of this judgment	 save to state in the barest outline that the appellant is the Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. One of its industrial under takings is located in Bilakootam	 Mavoor in Kozhikode Dis trict	 Kerala State. This establishment pro 405 duces Rayon Grade Pulp	 using Bamboo Eucalyptus and other species of wood as basic raw material. It has a large euca lyptus plantation coveting thousands of acres	 maintained as captive raw material for use in the factory. The State says that as a consequence of the Vesting Act	 the eucalyptus 8plantation being a private forest and not excluded there from is vested in the State with no fight	 title and inter est subsisting with the company. The claim of the company	 however	 is that the term 'private forest ' as defined under the Vesting Act	 excludes the eucalyptus plantation. 'Private forest ' has been defined in the Vesting Act as well as under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964) as amended by Amendment Act 35 of 1969 ("The KLR Act"). Since counsel for the appellant largely depends upon the judicial construction of the definition of 'private forest ' in the KLR Act	 it is necessary that we should set out hereunder both the definitions placed alongside with each other: THE KERALA PRIVATE FORESTS THE KERALA LAND REFORMS (VESTING AND ASSIGNMENT) ACT (ACT 1 OF 1964) AS ACT	 1971 AMENDED BY THE KERALA LAND REFORMS (AMENDME NT ACT 35/1969) (Act 26 of 1971) (AS AMENDED BY ACT 5 OF 2. Definitions. In this 1978) Act unless the context otherwise requires 2. Definitions: In this Act (47) 'private forest ' unless the context otherwise means a forest which is requires not owned by the Govern ment but does not inclu de (f) 'private forest ' means (1) in relation to the Mala (i) areas which are waste bar district referred to in and are not enclaves sub section (2) of Section within wooded areas; 5 of the (ii) areas which are gardens or nilams; (Central Act 37 of 1956) (i) any land to which the (iii) areas which are Madras Preservation of Pri planted with tea	 coffee	 vate Forests Act	 1949 (Madras cocoa	 rubber	 cardomom Act XXVIII of 1949) applied or cinnamon; and immediately (iv) other areas which are culti 406 before the appointed day excluding vated with (A) Lands which are gardens or pepper	 arecanut coco nilams as defined in the Kerala nut	 cashew or other Land Reforms Act	 1963 (1 of fruit bearing trees or 1964) are cultivated with any other agricultural crop;. (B) Lands which are used princi pally for the cultivation of tea	 coffee	 cocoa	 rubber	 cardomom	 or cinnamom and lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultiva tion of such crops or for the pre paration of the smae for the market. Explanation Lands used for the construction of office buildings	 godowns	 factories	 quarters for workmen	 hospitals	 schools and 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 other fruit bearing trees or are princi pally cultivated with any other agricultural crop; (D) sites of buildings and lands appurtenant to and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of	 such buildings; (ii) any forest not owned by the Government	 to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act	 1949 did not apply	 inclu ding waste lands which are encla ves within wooded areas. 407 (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 lane shall be deemed to be a waste land notwithstanding the existence thereon of scattered trees or shrubs;" We may first examine the scope of the definition of 'private forest ' under Section 2(47) of the KLR Act. It means a forest which is not owned by the Government	 excluding thereby four kinds of areas specified under sub clauses (i) to (iv). The latter part of sub clause (iv) contains the words" . . Other areas cultivated with any other agricultural crop". The terms 'agriculture ' and 'agricultural crop ' have wider as well as narrower connotation. The wider concept covers both the primary or basic as well as the subsequent operations. It takes within its fold among other things	 the products of the land which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce including forest products such as timber	 sal and piyasal trees	 casuarina plantations	 tendu leaves	 horranuts etc. (See: Commis sioner of Income Tax	 West Bengal	 Calcutta vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy	 ; at 156. Of course there must be present all throughout the basic idea that there must be cultiva tion of land in the sense of tilling of the lands	 sowing of the seeds	 planting and similar work done in the land. The forest growth or spontaneous growth of any product	 plants or trees	 however	 would be outside the characteristic of agricultural products or operations. In Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. vs State of Kerala & Ors.	 ; 	 this Court while examining the scheme of KLR Act with particular reference to Chapter III therein observed that 'lands under eucalyptus or teak which are the result of agricultural operations normally would be agricultural lands	 but not lands which are covered by eucalyptus or teak growing spontaneously as in a jungle or a forest. ' This is the wider concept of agricultural crop	 perhaps attributed to the latter part of sub clause (iv) of the definition under Section 2(47) of the KLR Act. The latter part of sub clause (iv) of Section 2(47) of the KLR 408 Act	 counsel for the appellant contended	 is practically the same as the second limb of sub clause (C) of Section 2(f)(1)(i) of the Vesting Act. It was claimed that since eucalyptus plantation is covered by the expression 'any other agricultural crop ' in Section 2(47) sub clause (iv) of the KLR Act	 Section 2(f)(1)(i) sub clause (C) of the Vest ing Act with similar words must also carry the same meaning. It was emphasised that the KLR Act and the Vesting Act constitute a Code of agrarian reform and they are cognate legislations with the Vesting Act as supplementary to the KLR Act. The expression 'any other agricultural crop ' used in both the enactments while defining 'private forest ' must therefore	 receive the same meaning as otherwise	 it would lead to anomalies. This is the line of argument for the appellant. This whole line of arguments with respect	 is hard to accept. As Felix Frankfurter	 J. said: "Legislation is a form of literary composition. But construction is not an abstract process equally valid for every composition	 not even for every composition whose meaning must be judicially ascertained. The nature of the composition demands awareness of certain presuppositions . And so	 the significance of an enactment	 its antecedents as well .	as .its later history	 its relation to other enactments	 all may be rele vant to the construction of words for one purpose and in one setting but not for another. Some words are confined to their history; some are starting points for history. 'Words are intellectual and moral currency. They come from the legislative mint with some intrinsic meaning. Sometimes it remains unchanged. Like currency	 words sometimes appreciate or depreciate in value". The learned Judge further stated: "Legislation has an aim; it seeks to obviate some mischief	 to supply an inadequacy	 to effect a change of policy	 to formulate a plan of government. That aim	 that policy is not drawn	 like nitrogen	 out of the air; it is evinced in the language of the statute	 as read in the light of other external manifestations of purpose. That is what the Judge must seek and effectuate. " (See: Courts	 Judges and Politics by Walter F. Murphy: 'Some Reflections of the Reading of Statutes ' by Felix Frankfurter). Judicial interpretation given to the words defined in one statute does not afford a guide to construction of the same words in another statute unless the Statutes are pari materia legislations. In the present case	 the aim and object of the two legislations are not similar in the first place. Secondly	 the definition of 'private forest ' in the KLR Act is not just the same as the definition of 'private forest ' in the Vesting Act. Indeed	 there is a vast differ ence in between the two. The object of the Vesting Act was to provide for the Vesting in the Government 409 of private forest in the State of Kerala for the assignment thereof to the agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. The preamble of the Act provides that such agricultural lands should be so utilised as to increase the agricultural production in the State and to promote the welfare of the agricultural population in the State. Two separate definitions have been provided in the Vesting Act; the first is applicable to the Malabar district where the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act	 1949 ( 'The MPPF Act ') applied immediately before the appointed day; the second concerned is in relation to the remaining areas in the State of Kerala. The definition of 'private forest ' as is applicable to the Malabar district is not general in terms but limited to the areas and lands to which the MPPF Act applied and exempts therefrom lands described under sub clauses (A) to (D). This significant reference to MPPF Act in the definition of 'priVate forest ' in the Vesting Act makes all the difference in the case. The MPPF Act was a special enactment. It was enacted by the erstwhile Madras State to preserve the private forests in the district of Malabar and erstwhile South Kannara District. The Scheme of that Act has been explained by several decisions of the Kerala High Court and that scheme appears to be that if the land is shown to be private forest on the date on which the MPPF Act	came into force	 it would continue to be a forest	 even if there was subsequent replantation. (See: State of Kerala vs Anglo American D.T.T. Co.	 and State of Kerala vs K.C. Moosa Haji	 (supra) (FB) AIR at 154 155.) It is not in dispute that the lands involved in this appeal were all forests as defined in the MPPF Act	 1949 and continued to be so when the Vesting Act came into force in 1971. In Malankara case (supra)	 this Court was not con cerned with the lands covered by the MPPF Act	 and denuded thereafter of forest growth and cultivated with fresh re plantation. Therefore	 it seems inappropriate to transplant the meaning accorded to 'private forest ' from the KLR Act to the Vesting Act. That wide concept cannot fit into the new legal source. In State of Kerala vs Gwalior Rayon Sm. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd.; 	 1	 this Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the Vesting Act has observed that the Forest Lands in the State of Kerala has attained a peculiar character owing to the geography and climate and the evidence available showed that the vast areas of these forests are still capable of supporting a large agricultural plantations. That much is clear from the following observa tions (at 683): "It is therefore	 manifest that when the legislature stated in 410 the preamble that the private forests are agricultural lands	 they merely wanted to convey that they are lands which by and large could be prudently and profitably ex ploited for agricultural purposes. " There is thus a judicial recognition of the distinction between private forest in Travancore Cochin area in Kerala State and the private forest in Malabar district. This distinction by itself is sufficient to dispel the anomalies suggested by counsel for the appellant. Look at the definition. Sub clause (A) refers to gardens or nilams as defined in the KLR Act. 'Garden ' means lands used principally for growing coconut trees	 arecanut trees or pepper vines or any two or more of the same. 'Nilam ' means lands adapted for the cultivation of paddy. Sub clause (B) deals with what may be called plantation crops	 cultiva tion of which in the general sense would be cultivation of agricultural crops. Such agricultural crops are by name specified. Lands used for any purpose ancillary to such cultivation or for preparation of the same for the market are also included thereunder. Next follows sub clause (C). It first refers to lands which are principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit bearing trees. It thus refers to only the fruit beating trees. It next refers to 'lands which are principally cultivated with any other agricultural crop. If the legislature had intended to use the term 'agricultur al crop ' in a wide sense so as to take within its fold all species of trees fruit beating or otherwise	 it would be unnecessary to have the first limb denoting only the cashew or other fruit beating trees. It may be significant to note that the Legislature in each sub clause (A) to (C) has used the words to identify the different categories of crops or trees. The words used in every sub clause too have "associa tions	 echoes and overtones". While construing such words	 judges must	 as Felix Frankfurter	 J.	 said "retain the associations	 hear the echoes and capture the overtones" (supra p. 414). When so examined and construed	 we do not discover any indication that the words in sub clause (C) "any other agricultural crop" are quite wide enough to comprehend all species of trees including eucalyptus planta tions. It is said	 indeed rightly	 that in seeking legislative intention	 judges not only listen to the voice of the legis lature but also listen attentatively to what the legislature does not say. Let us compare the wordings in Section 3 with those of sub clause (C). Under Section 3 sub section (1)	 private forests vest in Government. Sub clause (2) however	 excludes from such vesting lands within the ceiling limits 411 applicable to an owner if they are under his personal culti vation. Cultivation for this purpose "includes cultivation of trees or plants of any species". The explanation to sub section (2) makes this aspect beyond doubt. The lands used for the cultivation of any kind of tree	 fruit bearing or yielding only timber or pulp are not vested under Section 3 sub section (2). The legislature has thus excluded from vesting under Section 3 sub section (2) the trees of every variety. But while providing for exclusion under sub clause (C)	 the legislature could not have again thought of trees or plants of all kinds. It seems to have considered only fruit bearing trees and not of other species. If the inten tion was otherwise	 the sub clause(C) would have been in a different language. In our view as a matter of pure construction untram melled by authority	 the words used in the latter part of sub clause (C) could not take within its fold all varieties of trees and it could exclude only fruit bearing trees. This is also the conclusion of the High Court not only in the impugned judgment under appeal but also in the subse quent two decisions; Malayalam Plantation Limited and K.C. Maosa Haji cases (supra). In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case	 however	 we make no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal dis missed.

Summary:
The appellant company was maintaining a large eucalyptus plantation for captive consumption in its production of Rayon Grade Pulp. The State of Kerala claimed that as a consequence of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act	 1971	 the eucalyptus plantation being a 'private forest ' stood transferred to and vested in it. The company resisted the State 's claim on the ground that the term 'private forest ' excludes the eucalyptus plantation. The High Court decided the question in favour of the State and against the appellant. 402 In the appeal to this Court	 it was contended on behalf of the appellant that since the eucalyptus plantation was covered by the expression 'any other agricultural crop ' in section 2(47)(iv) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act	 1963 the similar expression used in section 2(f)(1)(i)(C) of the Vesting Act	 1971 must also carry the same meaning. Dismissing the appeal	 this Court. HELD: 1. Judicial interpretation given to the words defined in one statute does not afford a guide to construc tion of the same words in another statute unless the stat utes are pari materia legislations. [408G] 1.1 The definition of 'private forest ' in the Kerala Land Reforms Act is not just the same as the definition of 'private forest ' in the Vesting Act. Indeed	 there is a vast difference between the two. Two separate definitions have been provided in the Vesting Act; the first is applicable to the Malabar district where the Madras Preservation of Pri vate Forests Act	 1949 applied immediately before the ap pointed day; the second concerned is in relation to the remaining areas in the State of Kerala. The definition of 'private forest ' as is applicable to the Malabar district is not general in terms but limited to the areas and lands to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act ap plied	 and exempts there from lands described under sub clauses (A) to (D). This significant reference to this Act in the definition of 'private forest ' in the Vesting Act makes all the difference in the case. The scheme of this Act appears to be that if the land is shown to be private forest on the date on which the Act came into force	 it would continue to be a forest	 even if there was subsequent re plantation. [408H; 409A D] 1.2 The lands involved in this appeal were all forests as defined in the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act and continued to be so when the Vesting Act came into force. Therefore	 it seems inappropriate to transplant the meaning accorded to 'private forest ' from the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Vesting Act. [409E F] State of Kerala vs Anglo American D.T.T. Co.	 and State of Kerala vs K.C. Moosa Haji	 A.I.R. referred to. Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. vs State of Kerala & Ors. 	 ; 	 Held inapplicable. 403 State of Kerala vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd.; 	 	 referred to. The term 'agriculture ' and 'agricultural crop ' have wider as well as narrower connotation. The wider concept covers both the primary or basic as well as the subsequent operations. It takes within its fold among other things	 the products of the land which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce including forest products such as timber	 sal and piyasal	 trees	 casuarina plantations	 tendu leaves	 coconuts etc. Of course there must be present all throughout the basic idea that there must be cultivation of the land in the sense of tilling of the lands	 sowing of the seeds	 planting and similar work done in the land. The forest growth or spontaneous growth of any product	 plants or trees	 however	 would be outside the characteristic of agricultural products or operations. [407D F] Commissioner of 1. T. West Bengal vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy	 ; 	 referred to. 2.1 Under Section 3(1)	 private forests vest in Govern ment. Subsection (2) however	 excludes from such vesting lands within the ceiling limits applicable to an owner if they are under his personal cultivation. Cultivation for this purpose 'includes cultivation of trees or plants of any species '. The explanation to sub section (2) makes this aspect beyond doubt. The lands used for the cultivation of any kind of tree	 fruit bearing or yielding only timber or pulp are not vested under section 3 sub section (2). The legislature has thus excluded from vesting under section 3 sub section (2) the trees of every variety. But while pro viding for exclusion under sub clause (C) of section 2(f)(1)(i)	 the legislature could not have again thought of trees or plants of all kinds. It seems to have considered only fruit bearing trees and not of other species. Sub clause (C) refers to lands which are principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit bearing trees. It next refers to lands which are principally cultivated with any other agri cultural crop. If the legislature had intended to ' use the term 'agricultural crop ' in a wide sense so as to take within its fold all species of trees fruit bearing or other wise	 it would be unnecessary to have the first limb denot ing only the cashew or other fruit bearing trees. Therefore	 there is no indication that the words 'any other agricultur al crop ' in sub clause (C) are quite wide enough to compre hend all species of trees including eucalyptus plantations. These words exclude only fruit bearing trees. [410H; 41 1A D] State of Kerala vs Amalgamated Malabar Estates	 A.I.R. 1980 404 Ker. 137; State of Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd.	 A.I.R. 1981 Ker. 1 and State of Kerala vs K.C. Moosa Haji & Ors.	 A.I.R. 	 approved. In seeking legislative intention	 judges not only listen to the voice of the legislature but also listen atten tively to what the legislature does not say. [410G H]