The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the claimant to establish, with appropriate evidence, that the land in question was being used for purposes exempted from the definition of 'private forest' under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

1. Civil Appeal No. 4253/1984 and Civil Appeal No. 4423/1984:

The Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as. "the company") is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4423 of 1984. It owned 3687.48 acres of land, on 2148.28 acres of which rubber trees were planted. The said land fell within the Malabar District of the State of Madras prior to the coming into force of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956; thereafter it fell within the State of Kerala. The said land was

governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, immediately before the appointed day, 10th May, 1971, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

2. The said Act was enacted to provide for the vesting of private forests in the State Government and the assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. S.2 of the said Act defined 'private forest' to mean, in relation to the Malabar District aforementioned, land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, applied immediately before the appointed day under the said Act, excluding, inter alia, "lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon and lands used for any purposes ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market."

3. The company contended, among other things, that an area of 594.78 acres out of the said land was not a private forest within the meaning thereof quoted above being "uncultivated jungle area reserved for fuel purpose for manufacture of rubber, for use of labourers employed in the estate numbering about 4000, and for green manure/ mulching ancillary to the plantation and rocky area". It was stated in the company's claim statement thus:

'This is a chunk of land overgrown with wild growth whose retention with the applicant is absolutely necessary for reasons more than one. It is the only source of firewood necessary for the use as fuel for the manufacture of rubber and the vast plantations owned by the applicant depend for their economic exploitation on the firewood made available by the bit of jungle area. The firewood required by the large contingent of labourers and members of the staff employed in the estate is also supplied by this area. It also constituted the sole source of green manure so vitally required by the rubber plantations ground, which would be in their absence devoid of manure. Besides they are also the grazing ground for the cattle of the petitioner and it employees".

4. The Forest Tribunal constituted under the said Act which adjudicated the Company's claim noted:

"The date of commencement of the Act is 10.5.1971. So the state of affairs as on that date has to be considered. The requirement of firewood may increase as years go by. The point to be considered is whether this vast extent of jungle area was being used for taking firewood and not whether this property is not (sic) required by the petitioner to meet all its needs regarding firewood."

The Tribunal discussed the evidence of the witness on behalf of the company and the stock books that it had produced. It noted that the stock books, especially those prior to 1971, did not show that firewood was being regularly supplied to the workers and staff. According to the witness, firewood was necessary for making charcoal for sharpening the tools for tapping and for other maintenance work in the company's estate. He had also stated that firewood was being supplied to the canteen and the hospitals in the estate. The stock registers of the period prior to 10th May 1971, the Tribunal found, did not show that considerable quantities of firewood were being used for these purposes at that time. Further, in the Tribunal's view, the requirements of firewood for the domestic use of workers and staff for converting into charcoal and for supplying to the hospital and canteen could not be stat