The main legal point established in the judgment is that lands planted with eucalyptus for the purpose of using its timber later or for other purposes will not come within the exemption contained in S.2(f)(1)(i)(C) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, and therefore such lands are vested in the Government under S.3 of the Act.

1. M. F. A. No. 235 of 1977 is an appeal filed by the State of Kerala and the Custodian of Vested Forests, Palghat from a common decision passed by the Forest Tribunal, Calicut, on two separate applications field by two Companies, M/s Amalgamated Malabar Estates (P; Ltd., and the Indian Timber and Plywood Corporation Ltd., wherein they had prayed for a declaration that the Eucalyptus Plantations raised by them (in the case of the first Company 180 hectares of land by name Panikara Malavaram situated in resurvey 1/1 of Puduppadi Village, Kozhikode Taluk and in the case of the second Company 340 hectares of land by name Poithana Malavaram of Pallaperuvanna Village, Quilandy Taluk, Kozhikode District) have not vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). S.2(f) of the Act defines Private Forests There is no dispute that the lands in respect of which the declarations were sought for in the two petitions are situated in the erstwhile Malabar District and that the provisions of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. 1947, applied to these lands. The appellants-respondents in the applications pointing out that the Eucalyptus Plantations were raised by "the applicants after obtaining the necessary permission from the District Collector under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act had contended that such lands are not liable to be excluded from the provision of the Act because eucalyptus is not an agricultural crop. Though under the definition of the term private forest, it would take in relation to the Malabar District [referred to in sub section (2) of S.5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956], land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act applied, the definition clause makes specific provision for excluding lands which are principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit bearing trees or are principally cultivated with any other agricultural crops. The Tribunal overruling the objections of the State and the Custodian allowed the applications declaring that the eucalyptus plantations described in the petitions do not vest in the Government under S.3(1) of the Act.

2. It might be pointed out here that only one appeal had been filed from the common order in the two applications though the appellants are challenging the decision in each of the two applications. Two separate court fee of Rs. 100 each has been paid. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of a single appeal in respect of two independent proceedings by Sir. K.P. Kesava Menon, learned counsel for the respondents in the appeal. We felt that the objection is justifiable in view of the fact that the appellants are in. effect questioning the decision rendered in two separate applications which are quite independent of each other though the same common question of law arises in both and hence decided in one common order. Before the hearing of the appeal was over, the appellants filed CMP. No. 4287 of 1979 to treat the common appeal as two separate appeals and to condone the delay in filing the appeal from the decision in O. A. No. 138 of 1974. We think in the interests of justice this application should be allowed. We are allowing the same. Any prejudice to the respondents in the matter could well be compensated by payment to them of costs. In the circumstances we are herewith directing that the appellants would pay the respondents' counsel in this court Rs. 500 as costs in the matter of allowing CMP. No. 4287 of 1979.

3. The question that arises in MFA. No. 235 of 1977 arises in MFA. No. 346 of 1978 also. There the appellant is M/s Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co., Ltd., and the respondents are the Custodian of Vested Forests, Agricultural Forest (Special) Palghat and the State of Kerala. The appeal there arises out of the order dated 5th May 1978 of the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri and made in O. A. No. 124 of 1977 of