9911796707
|
Home
List of Issues:
1. Whether lands used for growing firewood trees for use in smoke-houses or factories or for employees' personal use are excluded from the definition of "private forests" under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. 2. Interpretation of the term "lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market" under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Act. 3. The burden of proof on appellants to show the necessity of lands for growing firewood trees. 4. The relevance of the availability of firewood or substitute fuels in the market. 5. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the case. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exclusion of Lands Used for Growing Firewood Trees: The primary issue was whether lands set apart for growing firewood trees for use in smoke-houses, factories, or for employees' personal use are excluded from the definition of "private forests" under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Act. The Kerala High Court had previously held that such lands fall within the expression "private forest" and accordingly vested in the State. However, the Supreme Court, referring to a larger Bench decision in the State of Kerala v. Moosa Haji, held that a reasonable area set apart for growing firewood trees for the purpose of fuel in smoke-houses or factories could be excluded from "private forests." The Court emphasized that such areas qualify as "lands used for the preparation of the (crops) for the market." 2. Interpretation of "Ancillary Purpose": The Court analyzed the term "lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market" under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B). The larger Bench of the Kerala High Court had observed that the industry practice included providing firewood to employees and using it in smoke-houses and factories. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that it was essential for an estate to grow firewood trees for these purposes. The Court highlighted that the legislative intent was to ensure the efficient functioning of estates and the welfare of employees, thus necessitating a liberal and purposive construction of the section. 3. Burden of Proof: The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden is on the appellants to show that it has been their practice to supply firewood to the employees of the estates for their domestic use. For the firewood required for factories and smoke-houses, the Court found no doubt about the appellants' claim. The Tribunal must ascertain the minimum reasonable area of land required for growing firewood trees for these purposes. 4. Availability of Firewood or Substitute Fuels: The Court noted that if evidence showed that firewood was steadily and adequately available in the market at reasonable rates, no land could be excluded from the definition of "private forest" on the ground that it was required for growing firewood trees. However, in the case before the Court, no such evidence was presented, and thus, the lands in question qualified for exemption under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B). 5. Judicial Precedents: The Court referred to the decision in Chettiam Veettil Ammad and Anr. v. Taluk Land Board and Ors., where it was held that the supply of firewood to estate employees could not be considered ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this observation was incidental and did not disqualify a reasonable area meant to supply fuel to employees. The Court also referred to the larger Bench decision in Moosa Haji, which supported the appellants' contention regarding fuel for smoke-houses and factories. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Kerala High Court and remanded the cases to the appropriate forest tribunals to determine the extent of land required for fuel for smoke-houses, factories, and employees' domestic use. The appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made. Separate Judgment by Sawant, J.: Justice Sawant delivered a separate judgment, disagreeing with the majority view. He argued that the land used for growing fuel, whether for workers or smoke-houses, would not fall within the purview of Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) as it could not be considered ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or for the preparation of the same for the market. He preferred the view taken by earlier benches, particularly the Full Bench in State of Kerala v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., which supported his interpretation. Consequently, he dismissed all the appeals and ordered the appellants to pay costs to the respondent-State.
|
