Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. Impact of Section 3(1)(vii), which pertains to the lease of private forests, needs to be dealt with a little more deeply. Though an attempt has been made before this Court to point out that the 2026:KER:2989 RSA 515/2012 & connected cases definition of "private forest" must be made with reference to Section 2(47) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, this Court does not see any difficulty in accepting the said argument. Section 2(47) is extracted hereunder:

East : Anakkal Thodu, Vellamara Kilaru and Hills South : S.Nos.385; 384; 386; 387; 383; 392; 391; 432;

431; 430; 433; 591; 595; 601 and 616A.

West : Mayappara Thodu.

North : Valiyakadu; Naicken Tharisu Kadu; Anakkal Kadu in Chudukattu Kunnu."

22. The cumulative reading of the Schedule to the lease deeds, throws up an entirely different perspective to the case. At the time of grant of lease, the properties were certainly private forest, which cannot be disputed by the defendants. No doubt, a permission to change the character of the private forest was granted to the original lessee with liberty to clear the timbers and planting rubber trees and doing other cultivation. In the present case, there cannot be any dispute that on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 the property in question retained its character of a private forest even though not to its entirety. Once it is concluded that the land in question retained the character of private forest, it is not possible for this Court to interpret the lease deed in such a manner so as to bring certain portions of the deeds within the purview of Kerala Land Reforms Act and to take out the remaining portion out of the purview of the Act. Such a differential construction is not proper.

2026:KER:2989 RSA 515/2012 & connected cases

27. However, in this case it is not so. In this case, original lease to Cecil Hall admittedly was that of a private forest, and thereafter the trustee renewed the lease in favour of M/s.Elak Rubber Company and M/s.Stanes and Company Ltd. Admittedly, at the time of renewal of the lease for 30 years in the year 1937, the property retained the character of a private forest. If the renewal of the lease is taken, then it is for both plantation as well as private forest. Therefore, when a lease is executed in respect of plantation, it is taken out of the purview of the Act.

(viii) Whether the finding of the first appellate court that the original lease was regarding a private forest and for planting rubber is sustainable in the light of the evidence adduced in the case?

Ans.- The finding of the first appellate court is that the lease is with regard to private forest and the planting of rubber is sustainable. The evidence in this case unequivocally suggests that as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, i.e. 1.4.1963, the lease was in respect of a private forest as well as a rubber plantation, which was more than 30 acres. Hence, the lease deed is taken outside the purview of the Act.