Judgment

T. K. THOMMEN, JJ.

( 1 ) A common question arises in all these cases. Are lands set apart in the estates in question for growing firewood trees such as eucalyptus corredgum to be used as fuel for the purpose of manufacturing rubber or tea in the smokehouses or factories or for the personal use of the employees in the estates excluded from the definition of private forests as contained in Section 2 (f) (l) (i) (B) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, (Act 26 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)? The Kerala High Court in the three judgments, which are impugned in these appeals, held that such lands fell within the expression private forest and accordingly vested in the State in terms of the Act. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellants to the contrary.

( 2 ) WE shall now read Section 2 (f) (1) (i) (B):-

"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(F) private forest means -

(1) in relation to the Malabar district referred to in sub-section (2) of Sec. 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) -

(I) any land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXVII of 1949), applied immediately before the appointed day excluding -

(B) lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon and lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market. " (Emphasis supplied)

( 3 ) THE High Court held that the lands on which firewood trees were grown for the purpose of fuel for either the smoke-houses or factories on the employees in the estates were not lands used for purposes ancillary to the cultivation of the crops or for the preparation of the same for the market so as to be excluded from the definition of private forests which vested in the State.

( 4 ) IT is not disputed that large quantities of firewood are essential as fuel for the manufacture of tea or rubber and certain areas in the estates are generally set apart for growing firewood trees like Eucalyptus or redgum. It is also not disputed that large number of persons are employed in the estates where quarters are generally provided for them and it is in the best interests of the estates that such persons are supplied with sufficient firewood for cooking as well as for keeping themselves warm, particularly in view of the high altitude at which many estates are located.

( 5 ) SOME of the earlier decisions of the Kerala High Court had taken the view that lands set apart for growing firewood trees in the estates for the purpose of fuel did not qualify for exclusion from private forests so as to prevent their Vesting in the State in terms of the Act. This was the view that was followed in the impugned judgments. Significantly, however, a Bench consisting of five Judges of the Kerala High Court subsequently considered this very question in the State of Kerala v. Moosa Haji, 1984 Ker LT 494 : (AIR 1984 Ker 149), apparently because the law laid down in the earlier decisions on the point was doubted. The larger Bench expressed the view that it was essential for an estate to grow firewood trees for the purpose of fuel for the employees as well as for the smokehouses and factories. In regard to the requirement of the employees, the High Court felt constrained by the observations of this Court in Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board, (1979) 3 SCR 839 : (AIR 1979 SC 1573 ). It was accordingly held that no exemption could be claimed in respect of areas utilised for cultivation of firewood trees to supply fuel for the employees. However, discarding the interpretation put on the section in some of the earlier decisions of the High Court, the learned Judges of the larger Bench held that a reasonable area set apart for growing firewood trees for the purpose of fuel in the smoke-houses or factories could be excluded from private forests. Such areas, they held, q