2010 (11) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Cinnamon. The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') came into force with 10.05.1971 as the appointed day providing for vesting of all private forests in the State of Kerala. An area of 5131 hectares of land which was in the possession of the appellant's Wayanad Estates in Wayanad District of Kerala State was deemed to be vested under the said Act. (b) The appellant filed five applications being OA Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 26 of 1975 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode in respect of its 5 Wayanad Estates challenging the vesting of 2588 hectares out of the 5131 hectares which were either planted with eucalyptus by the appellant prior to the vesting or were utilized for the purpose of fuel requirement for its factory and for the use of its employees. No application was filed for the balance 2543 hectares as it formed part of the forest and finally vested with the Government. (c) By a common order dated 13.03.1979, the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode exempted the entire 2588 hectares from the vesting provisions of the Act. (d) Aggrieved by the order of the Forest Tribunal, the State of Kerala filed appeals being MFA Nos. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd appeal filed by the State was allowed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment, both the appellant and the State Government have filed the above appeals. (3) Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for the Malayalam Plantations Ltd and Mr. Jayadeep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the State of Kerala. (4) Mr. L.N. Rao, after taking us through earlier remand order of this Court dated 24.08.1992 and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31.05.2002 submitted that the High Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the remand order dated 24.08.1992 only required the Tribunal to ascertain the area for the purpose of exemption commensurate with the area of plantation and fuel requirement of the appellant as on 10.05.1971. He also pointed out that the High Court was not justified in reducing the limit of the exempted land to 730.58 hectares only on the basis of the decision in Pullengode Rubber Produce (supra). According to him, it has no application to the facts of the appellant's case. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the State by drawing our attention to various materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ell as for the workers. That, however, is not the position in the case before us. On the pleadings and evidence before us, we do not consider that any further inquiry on the point is necessary. 16. In our view, Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) should be so understood as to grant exemption in respect of lands on which firewood trees are necessary to be grown for steady supply of a reasonable quantity of fuel to the employees as well as to the smoke-houses or factories in the estates. In the absence of satisfactory evidence to show that firewood is adequately and steadily available in the market at reasonable prices, such lands, in our view, qualify for exemption under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Act as "lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market". This principle, in our view, must hold good in relation to all crops mentioned under the aforesaid provision. The Tribunal shall merely ascertain as to what is the minimum reasonable area of land required for growing firewood trees to be used as fuel in the factories or smoke-houses and for supply to the employees for their domestic purposes, if such supply to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in possession of an extent of 1199.3579 hectares of land other than plantation for ancillary purposes In the counter affidavit filed by the Plantations Company, the Company put forth their case and produced Annexure R1 in support of their stand claiming more extent of land for the use of their employees. 8) Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the State by taking us through the various documents filed in the said CMP demonstrated that if we consider the contents of the same, the entire claim of the Malayalam Plantations is to be rejected. He further submitted that in view of the fact that Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC enables the parties to place documents in support of their claim as additional evidence, the High Court though adverted to did not consider the same and no order was passed in the said CMP No. 8793 of 2001. Mr. Rao pointed out that if this Court scrutinizes each and every document, the claim of the State is to be rejected in toto and the stand of the appellant is to be accepted. 9) We are not inclined to go into the validity or acceptability of those documents/materials filed by both sides before the High Court. Order 41 of CPC speaks about procedure in respect of disp....