<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (4) TMI 281 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168287</link>
    <description>Eucalyptus plantations were held not to fall within the exclusion for &quot;any other agricultural crop&quot; in the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The exclusion clause had to be read in the setting of the Act&#039;s structure and object, alongside the specific references to gardens, nilams, plantation crops and fruit-bearing trees, which showed a limited and contextual use of the expression. A broader meaning of &quot;agricultural crop&quot; used in the Kerala Land Reforms Act could not be imported into the Vesting Act because the two statutes served different purposes. The eucalyptus lands were therefore treated as private forests continuing to vest under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 21:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 281 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168287</link>
      <description>Eucalyptus plantations were held not to fall within the exclusion for &quot;any other agricultural crop&quot; in the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The exclusion clause had to be read in the setting of the Act&#039;s structure and object, alongside the specific references to gardens, nilams, plantation crops and fruit-bearing trees, which showed a limited and contextual use of the expression. A broader meaning of &quot;agricultural crop&quot; used in the Kerala Land Reforms Act could not be imported into the Vesting Act because the two statutes served different purposes. The eucalyptus lands were therefore treated as private forests continuing to vest under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>