Abdul Gafoor, J.

This case has come up before us on reference by a Division Bench. The Division Bench opined that a question identical to the one arising in this case concerning demand of seigniorage for the shade trees cut and removed had been directed by another Division Bench to be place before a larger bench doubting the correctness of the decision in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. {1998 (1) KLJ 78}={1998 (1) KLT 28}. But the issue was not decided therein. Therefore, the Division Bench felt that,

“an authoritative pronouncement requires to be made in view of the above legal position that has been highlighted by the learned Special Government Pleader.”

Accordingly the matter comes up before us.

2. The earlier reference referred to by the Division Bench was in Ext.R2(c). Therefore, in order to understand the question of law to be decided by us, we have to refer to Ext.R2(c). The question arose for consideration there, was “the interpretation of section 4 of the Kerala Grants & Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980”. That Division Bench, referring to the decision in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. {[1991] 2 SCC 272} found