GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO LIMITED Vs. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS PALGHAT
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-74
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on April 06,1990

GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING (WEAVING) COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS,PALGHAT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

G ARUMUGA THEVAR VS. SATHUR SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY DEVASTHANAM THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SATHUR [LAWS(MAD)-1998-6-110] [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR PALACE VS. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2001-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. SATISH [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CSEB BILASPUR DIVISION VS. PUBLIC UTILITY PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BILASPUR [LAWS(CHH)-2011-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
V NARASIMHA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
G RAJABABU VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANTA MALIK VS. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO VS. KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VS. JOHN THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR DUBEY VS. PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
MANDADI SATYANARAYANA REDDY VS. ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
AKBARUDDIN OWAISI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2013-7-163] [REFERRED]
HARI OM YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-129] [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. KHALIL AHMED [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-202] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU VS. GAGAN BIHARI NAYAK AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI TRIPATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2008-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
K V BALAN VS. SIVAGIRI SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGHOM TRUST [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTINE HODEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. N D GADAG [LAWS(BOM)-1992-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
MANCHINENI VENKATA RATNAM VS. DISTRICT JUDGE KRISHNA CUM APPELLATE TENANCY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR KUKREJA VS. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2009-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMA LIMITED VS. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
MARITIME INSTITUTE ASSOCIATION VS. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVANI TEA AND PRODUCE CO LIMITED STATE OF KERALA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1991-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
SCHWING STETTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES EZHILAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-254] [REFERRED TO]
SUMEDHA VEHICLES PVT. LTD. VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. GOVIND SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
SRI GANESH D ED COLLEGE BANGALORE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
K M S UBAIDA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1998-3-27] [FOLLOWED]
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CHINTAMANI RAO [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-214] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWIN ASHOKRAO KAROKAR VS. LAXMIKANT GOVIND JOSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. V KALA BHARATHI [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
A. MUTHYALA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR KUKREJA VS. ADD SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HRD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-106] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SAMAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
DR V K RAJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2007-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. QUAZI ALI AHMED [LAWS(ORI)-2017-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANABEN WIFE OF NAIMESHBHIA PATEL DAUGHTER OF AMRUTBHAI PATEL VS. NIMESHBHAI HARJIVANDASBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-417] [REFERRED TO]
J P BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-15] [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
SRIRAM CHITS TAMIL NADU PVT LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-277] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. PRICE WATERHOUSE [LAWS(SC)-1997-7-48] [RELIED ON]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHARAO BHIM SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-196] [REFERRED TO]
LANCO ANPARA POWER LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KAGHAZNAGAR ADILABAD DISTRICT VS. VENKATESWARA SAW MILLS [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT, CATERING TECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED NUTRITION VS. SUDDHASIL DEY [LAWS(CAL)-2020-3-150] [REFERRED TO]
BALJEET SINGH VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-10-31] [REFERRED]
AJAY GUPTA S/O JAGARNATH GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P LEGAL AFFIAR LAW N DEPT VS. M VENKATESHWARALU [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK JAIN VS. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2011-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
MRF MAZDOOR SANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN MAHAVAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2008-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ABAD FISHERIES [LAWS(KER)-2016-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. EDHAYAM FROZEN FOODS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH PATEL VS. MADHYA PRADESH POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS MOTORS CO. P. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-131] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR [LAWS(CHH)-2013-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
S BALA BAWA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1997-3-60] [REFERRED]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. NATIONAL PRINTERS [LAWS(GAU)-1996-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
B. VENKATESWARLU VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P VEMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2007-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
MEESALA MURALIDHAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
ANJUMAN ISLAMIA TRUST VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2002-5-102] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY - (1.)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, 1971 (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 v. Malayalam Plantation Ltd., AIR 1981 Kerala 1 and reiterated by a larger Bench of. five Judges in State of Kerala v. K. C. Moosa Haji, AIR 1984 Kerala 149.
(2.)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 undertakings is located in Bilakootam, Mavoor in kozhikode District, Kerala State. This establishment produces Rayon Grade Pulp, using Bamboo Eucalyptus and other species of wood as basic raw material. It has a large eucalyptus plantation covering 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 plantation being a private forest and not excluded therefrom is vested in the State with no right, title and interest 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 along side with each other: JUDGEMENT_785_SUPP1_1990Html1.htm

(3.)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. Of course there must be present all throughout the basic idea that there must be cultivation 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. v. State of Kerala, (1973) 1 SCR 399 : (AIR 1972 SC 2027), 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.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.