ChandraseKhara Menon, J.—These appeals have come before us on three separate orders of references by a Division Bench of this Court passed on the same date—30-10-1979. Reference Order in M.FA. Nos. 209, 211, 212, 233 and 234 of 1979 reads as follows:

"In these appeals by the State one of the main questions we are called upon to decide is that covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v-Mis. Amalgamated Malabar Estates (P) Ltd, ILR. 1979(2) Ker. 525: 1979 KLT. 829. Whether eucalyptus plantation falls outside the purview of the term 'private forest' as defined in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act 26 of 1971 is the question that so arises. Relying on the Full Bench decision the learned Additional Advocate General con; tends for the position that the orders of the Forest Tribunal have to be reversed. But counsel Sri P. K. Kurien appearing for the respondents in these cases canvasses the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench. Elaborate arguments have began addressed by counsel before us on the scope of the term "lands which are principally cultivated with any other agricultural crop" appearing in S.2 (f) (1) (i) (c) of Act 26 of 1971. In the case before the Full Bench adverted to earlier it was contended by counsel for the respondents that eucalyptus tree was just another species of tree capable of bearing fruits just like cashew tree or any other fruit bearing tree. It was also contended that the terms "agriculture" and "agricultural operations" could be appropriately applied in the case of a eucalyptus plantation. Dealing with this the Full Bench said that as generally understood by the ordinary man eucalyptus trees are non-fruit bearing trees. The raising of teak, the raising of casuarinas etc. as the raising of eucalyptus might bean agricultural operation in the broad sense of that expression. But the Full Bench found it difficult to say that land-* cultivated with eucalyptus trees would be lands principally cultivated with agricultural crop coming within the ambit of the term "agricultural crop" as used in the Act. The Full Bench proceeded further to state thus:

One should not deviate from the normal rules of statutory construction and refuse to evaluate the meaning of the word "any other" appearing before agricultural crop in S.2 (f) (1) (i) (c) of the Act. We find much force in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the use of these words attracted the principles of ejusdem generis, according to which the words "agricultural crops" in the section can mean only a similar crop as cashew or other fruit bearing trees mentioned in the same clause."

Learned counsel Sri. P. K. Kurien relies on the above passage in support of his case. According to him applying the principle stated by the Full Bench in the above passage he is entitled to succeed as the application of the principle should lead to the logical conclusion that eucalyptus is an agricultural crop. Applying the rule of ejusdem generis (he term "agricultural crop" should mean crop similar to cashew and other fruit bearing trees. It is further said that the Full Bench had not indicated what exactly would be the class which would be covered by the application of the rule of ejusdem generis Eucalyptus, it is said, besides yielding fruit and honey, yields eucalyptus leave used for extraction of oil, bark which again is said to be a commercial product and the trunk which is used for pulp. It is said that the rule of ejusdem generis should be so read as to take in such crops as sugar-cane, tapioca and eucalyptus. In short, the contention of learned counsel Shri. P.K. Kurien is that though the Full Bench has indicated that the term 'any other' appear ings before the words 'agricultural crop" is to be read ejusdem generis there is no guidance for application of this principle. It is further said that on a plain application of the rule of ejusdem generis it is not shown that eucalyptus will