(1)
SIRAJUL AND OTHERS Vs.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
06/07/2015
Facts:The incident occurred on 11th February, 1992, resulting in two cross cases being registered.Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the appellants 16 years after the incident, after being convicted in a cross case.The delay in filing the complaint was deemed unreasonable, especially considering the possibility of seeking simultaneous trial of the cross case earlier.The appellants challen...
(2)
STATE OF M.P. Vs.
MANISH AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
06/07/2015
Facts: The appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, challenged the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings based on an out-of-court settlement between the parties involved.Issues: Whether serious offenses like attempt to murder and violations of the Arms Act can be quashed solely on the basis of an out-of-court settlement.Held: The Court ...
(3)
BASISTH NARAYAN YADAV Vs.
KAILASH RAI AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
03/07/2015
Facts: The case involved allegations of harassment and dowry demands against the deceased, Raj Banshi Devi, by her in-laws shortly after her marriage. The deceased's brother, Basisth Narayan Yadav, testified to the harassment his sister faced and presented a letter written by her expressing fear of being killed by her in-laws if dowry demands were not met. Medical reports showed the deceased ...
(4)
LAXMI DEVI Vs.
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
03/07/2015
Facts: The State of Bihar expropriated land under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for constructing residential quarters for State officials. However, delays in passing the award within the stipulated time resulted in the lapse of proceedings. Despite subsequent notifications, no award was passed. The landowners filed a writ petition alleging malafide resort to Section 17, seeking jus...
(5)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs.
ANOOP SINGH .....Respondent D.D
03/07/2015
Facts:The prosecutrix, a minor girl, was allegedly kidnapped and raped by the accused on January 3, 2003.The accused was initially convicted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused appealed against the conviction before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which acquitted him based on doubts about the age of the ...
(6)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs.
KESHAR SINGH .....Respondent D.D
03/07/2015
Facts: The case involved the alleged rape of a minor who was also of unsound mind. The incident supposedly occurred near a pond while the prosecutrix and her sister were on their way to their field. The prosecutrix's father filed a police complaint, and medical examination revealed signs of sexual intercourse. The prosecution presented several witnesses, including family members and the docto...
(7)
DAYA RAM AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent
D.D
02/07/2015
Facts: The case involves the conviction of the appellants, Daya Ram and others, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of the Code. The prosecution's case was based on a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the informant Bajrang Bali, alleging that the appellants had assaulted his brothers, resulting in their deaths. Bajrang Bali, claiming to be an eyewitness, testified about the even...
(8)
M/S ESSAR OIL LTD. Vs.
HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
02/07/2015
Facts:Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (Respondent) was contracted by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) to perform certain work.Hindustan Shipyard subcontracted part of this work to M/S Essar Oil Ltd. (Appellant).Dispute arose when Essar Oil claimed that Hindustan Shipyard had not paid them for the work they had done.The matter was taken to arbitration, where a majority of the Arbitral Tribunal con...
(9)
N.K. RAJENDRA MOHAN Vs.
THIRVAMADI RUBBER CO. LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondent
Section Acts, Rules, and Articles Mentioned:
Article 136, Article 14, Article 19, Article 31, Article 31A, Article 31A(1), Article 31A(2): Constitution of India, 1950
Section 132, Section 3(1): Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961
Section 13, Section 13(1), Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 2, Section 2(1), Section 2(2), Section 2(3), Section 2(39), Section 2(44), Section 2(47), Section 2(57), Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 3, Section 3(1), Section 53, Section 59(2), Section 72, Section 72B, Section 81, Section 81(1): Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963
Section 125, Section 2, Section 3(1): Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929
Section 116: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Subject:
Suit for eviction and damages under lease agreements.
Headnotes:
Facts:
In 1918, the appellant leased out land to the original lessee for 36 years. The land encompassed various areas suitable for cultivation, and the lessee was authorized to grow various crops at their discretion. The respondent-company was later inducted into the leased land. The appellant filed a suit for eviction and damages, claiming that the lease had lapsed with the passage of time.
Issues:
Whether the respondent was entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.
Held:
The lease deed executed in 1918 did not automatically transform into a tenancy in respect of the plantation without the explicit agreement of both parties.
The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, aimed to strike a fair balance between various interests involved, including tenants' rights and landlords' rights of resumption.
The respondent was entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
Decision: The Court upheld the respondent-company's entitlement to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and dismissed the appellant's appeal.
Referred Cases:
Rt., Rev. Dr. Jerome Fernandes Vs B. B. Rubber Estate Ltd 1972 KLT 613;
Karimbil Kunhikoman vs State of Kerala (1962) Suppl. 1 SCR 829;
Jacob Philip vs State Bank of Travancore 1972 KLT 914;
Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. & Ors vs The State of Kerala & Ors. (1972) 2 SCC 492;
N. V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 10 SCC 566;
K. V. Pathumma vs Taluk Land Board and Ors 1997 (2) SCR 175 : (1997) 4 SCC 114;
State of Kerala vs K Sarojini Amma and Ors 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 694 : (2003) 8 SCC 526 ;
Kai Khushroo Bezonjee Capadia Vs Bai Jerbai Hirjibhoy Warden & Anr 1949-50 FCR 262;
Bhawanji Lakhamshi & Ors Vs Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors 1972 ( 2) SCR 890 : (1972) 1 SCC 388;
State of UP Vs Jahoor Ahmad & Anr AIR 1973 SC 2520: 1974 (1) SCR 344.
JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.—The Appellant, one of the Plaintiffs in the suit instituted before Munsif Court (II), Kozhikode along with others against the Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking eviction of the latter from the land involved and damages for the use and occupation thereof, in his relentless pursuit for redress is before this penultimate institutional forum, having successively failed at all the intermediate tiers. The procrastinated tussle spanning over three decades eventually seeks a quietus at this end.
2. We have heard Mr. A.S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Incidentally, the co-Plaintiffs have been arrayed as other Respondents in the instant appeal.
3. The salient facts, which make up the edifice of the lingering contentious dissent, however lie in a short compass. As adverted to hereinabove, the Appellant alongwith others did institute a suit, being OS 569/1982 before Munsif Court (II), Kozhikode against the Respondent No. 1 praying for its eviction from the suit land and realization of arrear rent, damages etc, the pleaded case being that the suit land had belonged to their Tarwad and was a private forest. On 21.6.1918, an area of 963.75 acres was leased out to one Mr. Campbell Hunt for a period of thirty six years vide Exh. A 1 whereunder, the lessee was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 693.75 per annum towards annual rent. Eventually, through intervening transactions, the Respondent-company stood inducted to the suit land with the same status. According to the Plaintiffs, they were the joint owners of the property and asserted that neither the original lessee Mr. Campbell Hunt nor his successors did derive fixity of tenure or right of ownership either under the lease deed or the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1963), brought into force on and from 01.04.1964 or any other tenancy laws prior thereto. The Plaintiffs averred, that at the time of handing over the property to Mr. Campbell Hunt in the year 1948, the same was a private forest under the ownership and possession of their Tarwad. The lease which was for a period of 36 years with effect from 01.04.1918 lapsed with efflux of time and the Respondent-company had no right to retain the possession thereof. The Plaintiffs admitted that it (Respondent-company) had raised a rubber estate on the suit land. It was alleged that the Respondent-company also did not pay the lease rent as fixed i.e. Rs. 693.75 per annum for the year 1979, 1980 and thereafter. That in inspite of several requests, it did not vacate the land by removing its buildings etc. therefrom for which a notice was addressed on 10.11.1980 to the Respondent-company to vacate and deliver possession of the suit land was stated. According to the Plaintiffs, in terms of the notice, the tenancy stood extinguished from 21.6.1981. However in response to the notice, the Respondent-company claimed in its reply, that it had acquired the right of fixity of tenure on the suit land. In this factual premise, the Plaintiffs instituted the suit, for the above reliefs claiming inter alia arrear lease rent at the rate of Rs. 693.75 per annum from 01.04.1979 to 20.06.1981 and damages at the same rate for the period subsequent thereto for use and occupation thereof.
4. The Respondent-company in its written statement, resisted the suit. While admitting, the lease deed Exh. A 1, in favour of Mr. Campbell Hunt in the year 1918, it elaborated that out of total land leased, the cultivable area was 925 acres and that the lease was granted with the right to cultivate coffee, tea, pepper, cinchona, rubber etc. and any other produce as the lessee would consider proper, by cleaning the area. The Respondent-company claimed fixity of tenure under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (for short hereinafter referred to as Act 1929) as well as the Act 1963, and pleaded for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The learned Trial Court in the face of the Respondent-company's claim of fixity of tenure, referred the issue to the Land Tribunal, Kasargod which sustained this plea and consequently the suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs met the same fate. Being still aggrieved, they (Appellants) did take the challenge before the High Court of Kerala. By the judgment impugned, the High Court has sustained the adjudication of the Courts below.
6. As the decisions impugned would reveal, the High Court negated the Plaintiffs' assertion that the suit land at the time of the initiation of the lease in the year 1918 was a private forest and thus stood excluded from the applicability of Act 1963 in terms of Section 3(1)(vii) thereof, as it was granted to Mr. Campbell Hunt as per Exh. A 1 to cultivate rubber, cinchona, coffee and any such crop as the lessee construed it to be proper. It was inter alia observed that the lease deed clearly disclosed that the land was Poramboke and not assessed to any revenue and that the lessee was permitted to cut and remove trees, shrubs etc. to prepare the same for the purpose of cultivating rubber, tea, coffee etc. The High Court was also of the view that if the conveyed land was a forest, there would have been some stipulation in the lease deed to the effect. That the lease rent was fixed at the rate of the cultivable area was also noted. The High Court did record as well, that the land was assessed to Government revenue on the basis of cultivations done which too belied the Appellants' claim of the same being a private forest. Reference was also made to the relevant survey plan (Exh. A 2), appended to the lease deed, to endorse the conclusion against the existence of private forest on the land at the time of its demise on lease. It ruled further, that even if the land was a private forest at the time of the initial lease, cultivation of various other crops thereon, after the execution of the lease deed took it out of the ambit of Section 3(1)(vii) of Act 1963.
7. Vis-a-vis the next contention, namely, that the suit land contained a plantation on the date of enforcement of Act 1963 and thus stood exempted from the ambit thereof, the High Court entered a finding, that the statutory provision i.e. Section 3(1)(viii), applied to cases where a plantation did exist at the time of the grant of lease and not on the date of commencement of the statute. Relying on the decision of a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Rt., Rev. Dr. Jerome Fernandes v. B.B. Rubber Estate Ltd. 1972 KLT 613 dilating on the same issue, the High Court thus concluded that the Respondent-company was entitled to fixity of tenure. In these premise, the aspect of its entitlement to the value of improvements made by it on the land was left undecided. As a corollary, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Mr. Nambiar, the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant has assiduously argued, that having regard to the covenants of the lease deed and the attendant facts and circumstances, the transaction was well within the purview of Section 3(1)(vii) and/or 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1963 and was thus exempted from the applicability thereof and consequently the Respondent-company was not entitled to any fixity of tenure as per the statute. Referring to the objects and reasons of the enactment, the learned senior Counsel insisted that the applicability of Section 3(1)(vii) and 3(1)(viii) thereof has to be essentially tested on the touchstone of the date of the enforcement of the legislation. As admittedly, there was a standing rubber plantation on the suit land on that date i.e. 01.04.1964, the Respondent-company unmistakably had no sustainable right of fixity of tenure and thus the deductions to the contrary as recorded in the impugned decisions are patently non est. in law. Mr. Nambiar urged that this issue having been authoritatively settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala (1962) Suppl. 1 SCR 829, the decision to the contrary as recorded by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Rt., Rev. Jerome Fernandes (supra) is on the face of it per incuriam and consequently the impugned verdict founded thereon is unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned senior Counsel pleaded, that as the Act 1963, enacted after the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1961, is one for implementing land reforms in the State, no interpretation with regard to the applicability thereof ought to be assigned that would ensue in fragmentation of plantations existing on the date of the enforceability thereof and thus, the plantations standing on the suit land, did come within the exemption contemplated Under Section 3(1)(viii). No exposition of Section 3 of Act 1963, incompatible with the objects and reasons thereof being permissible in law, the finding of the non-applicability thereof to the suit land is patently erroneous, he urged. The learned senior Counsel, to endorse this contention, amongst others, placed reliance also on a subsequent decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Jacob Philip v. State Bank of Travancore 1972 KLT 914. Contending that the Act 1963 is prospective in nature, Mr. Nambiar emphasised that the text of Section 3(1)(viii) thereof, clearly expressed the legislative intent of including tenancies in respect of plantation exceeding 30 acres existing on the date of enforcement thereof. In addition, the learned senior Counsel asserted, that with the expiry of the initial period of lease in the year 1954, there was no formal renewal thereof and in terms of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the Respondent continued in possession of the land by holding over, signifying at the best a lease, on year to year basis and in that view of the matter, in the face of admitted plantation on the suit land, the Respondent-company was drawn within the coils of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1963 and thus was disentitled to claim fixity of tenure. In the alternative, Mr. Nambiar insisted that the Respondent-company is not a tenant in respect of the land after 1954 and thus in any case, is not entitled to the protection of fixity of tenure Under Section 13(1) of the Act 1963. The learned senior Counsel placed on reliance as well on the decision of this Court in The Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. and Others, etc., etc. Vs. The State of Kerala and Others, etc., etc., AIR 1972 SC 2027 : (1972) 2 SCC 492 : (1973) 1 SCR 399 .
9. A contrario sensu, Mr. Singhvi, the learned senior Counsel for the Respondent-company, maintained that as neither Section 3(1)(vii) nor the Section 3(1)(viii) is attracted in the present factual setting, the concurrent findings to this effect are assuredly unassailable and thus the instant challenge deserves to be dismissed in limine. The learned senior Counsel insistently urged that as the pleaded case of the Appellant in the plaint was limited to the existence of private forest at the time of lease and that there was no whisper whatsoever of any plantation thereon, the plea based on Section 3(1)(viii) of Act 1963 ought not have been entertained by High Court and by no means should be taken cognizance of by this Court. Mr. Singhvi contended that in the face of the concession on behalf of the Appellant that neither at the initiation of the lease nor at the enforcement of Act 1963 there did exist a reserve forest or the land, Section 3(1)(vii) was decisively inapplicable. The plea founded of Section 3(1)(viii) relatable to plantation, in absence of any pleading to the effect ought to have been summarily rejected, he asserted. This is more so as this plea was not raised either before the Trial Court or the Land Tribunal, or the First Appellate Court. The decision of the Kerala High Court in Jerome Fernandes (supra) being a determination clearly answering the issue vis-a-vis Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1963 and as the ruling of this Court in Karimbil Kunhikoman (supra) pertains to a distinctively different sphere of scrutiny, the contention that the former is per incuriam the latter is wholly misplaced, he maintained. According to Mr. Singhvi, the decision in Karimbil Kunhikoman (supra) dwelt upon the aspect of discrimination stemming from classification of plantations under the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961 and is wholly unrelated to the challenge in Jerome Fernandes (supra). The learned senior Counsel urged as well, that the decision of this Court in Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. and Ors. supra being on a different issue does not render the adjudication in Jerome Fernandes (supra) per incuriam. Mr. Singhvi pleaded that having regard to the doctrine of stare decisis, the verdict in Jerome Fernandes (supra) having held the field, over the years, the same was rightly applied by the courts below. He urged that not only the materials on record, do unequivocally demonstrate that neither the land was a private forest nor did contain any plantation on the date of the lease and thus the same is beyond the scope of Section 3(vii) and 3(viii) of Act 1963 as has been consistently held by the Trial Court and the higher forums, and thus this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 136 of Constitution of India would not, even otherwise, lightly dislodge the same. Mr. Singhvi maintained, that the factum of existence of private forest and of plantation for the applicability of Section 3(1)(vii) and 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1963 would be assuredly relevant as on the date of the lease and not on one of the enforcement of the enactment and judged by that benchmark, the suit land is beyond the said exemption clauses, entitling the Respondent-company to the right of fixity of tenure under the legislation.
10. In responding to the plea raised on behalf of the Appellant in reply that in any view of the matter, the provisions of the Act 1963 pertaining to ceiling on the area of land that can be held by the Respondent-company would apply, Mr. Singhvi maintained that the same at the first place having been raised for the first time in this Court, it ought to be readily dismissed. Further, as there is a plantation on the suit land on the date of enforcement of the Act, it is exempted from ceiling as per the Section 81(1)(e) thereof. In any case, it being an issue between State Government and the Respondent-company, the Appellant has no locus standi to even refer thereto, the learned senior Counsel urged. Mr. Singhvi did argue as well, that in the face of Section 72 of the enactment, there was no equity in favour of the Appellant, he having been reduced to a non-entity by the statutory investiture of the landlord's right in the Government. The following decisions amongst others too were referred to.
N.V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 10 SCC 566 , Kattite Valappil Pathumma and others Vs. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1997 SC 1115 : (1997) 2 JT 624 : (1997) 2 SCALE 200 : (1997) 4 SCC 114 : (1997) 2 SCR 175 : (1997) AIRSCW 1142 : (1997) 2 Supreme 358 , State of Kerala and Others Vs. K. Sarojini Amma and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4475 : (2003) 2 JT 366 Supp : (2003) 8 SCALE 591 : (2003) 8 SCC 526 : (2003) 4 SCR 694 Supp : (2003) AIRSCW 5248 : (2003) 7 Supreme 582 .
11. We have extended our thoughtful consideration to the recorded materials and the competing arguments. Whereas the Appellant seeks the ouster of the Respondent-company from the land involved contending that it is not entitled to the protection of fixity of tenure under the Act 1963, the latter pleads to the contrary by taking refuge of the enactment, asserting that the exemption clauses contained in Section 3(1)(viii) and 3(1)(viii) are inapplicable to it. A correct exposition of Section 3(1)(vii) and 3(1)(viii) of Act 1963 would, as a corollary, be of definitive significance. Necessarily thus, the instant adjudicative exercise, ought to be preceded by an adequate reference to the relevant legal provisions.
12. As the flow of events attest, the enactment earliest in point of time qua the present lis, is the Malabar Tenancy Act 1929. As the preamble of this statute would reveal, it was one to define, declare, alter and amend, the law relating to landlord and tenant in the Gudalur Taluk of the Nilgiris District. Section 2 thereof, which exempted lands from its application being of relevance is quoted hereunder.
2. Exception:
Nothing in this Act shall apply to-
(1) Lands transferred by a landlord for filling timber or for planting tea, coffee, rubber, cinchona or any other special crop prescribed by a rule made by the State Government or the erection of any building for the purpose of or, ancillary to the cultivation of such crop, or the preparation of the same for the market or land let only for fugitive cultivation:
Provided that no rule under this clause shall affect any land in respect of which any tenant has a right of fixity of tenure under this Act, so long as such right subsists.
(2) any transaction relating only to the usufruct of trees.
(3) any building owned by a landlord including a house, shop or warehouse, and the site thereof, together with the garden or land appurtenant thereto but not including a hut belonging to a landlord, in any ulkudi.
Apart from defining inter alia the expressions "landlord" and "tenant", the legislation did confer right of fixity of tenure on certain classes of tenants as set out Under Section 21.
13. A plain reading of Section 2 would authenticate exclusion of the applicability of the Act 1929 to lands transferred by the landlord for felling timber or for planting tea, coffee, rubber, cinchona or any other special crop prescribed by a rule made by the State Government or the erection of a building for the purpose of or ancillary to the cultivation of such crop, or the preparation of the same for the market or land let only for fugitive cultivation. The proviso of Section 2(1) clarifies that no rule thereunder would affect any land, in respect of which any tenant did have right of fixity of tenure so long as such right did subsist. Sub-sections (2) and (3) being not of relevance are not being adverted to.
14. The legislative backdrop of the Act 1963 portrays, that it was amongst others preceded by the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1960) which sought to introduce comprehensive land reforms in the State of Kerala and did receive the assent of the President on 21.1.1961. The statement of objects and reasons of the enactment i.e. Act 1963 disclose that this Court had declared unconstitutional the Act 1960 in its application to ryotwari lands of Hosdurg and Kasargod Taluks, whereafter eventually the Act 1963 was enacted to provide an uniform legislation in the State, by keeping in view the broad objectives of land reforms as laid down by the Planning Commission and the basic objectives of the Act 1960. As the scheme of Act 1963 would dominantly demonstrate, the statutory endeavour has been to strike a fair and equitable balance of various interests to be impacted thereby so as to facilitate smooth implementation thereof, without casting undue financial burden on the State. Conferment of fixity of tenure on the tenants as well as the limited right of resumption to the landlords are also the noticeable features of the enactment with the emphasis that the right of resumption would not be available against tenants, who were entitled to fixity of tenure immediately prior to 21.1.1961 under the law then in force, unless such tenants had in their possession land in excess of the ceiling area.
The statement of objects and reasons do refer to as well, the provisions pertaining to determination of fair rent at uniform rates and purchase of the rights of the landowners and intermediaries of a holding by the cultivating tenant. The Act 1963 as contemplated, did provide for imposition of a ceiling on holdings and constitution of Land Tribunal and Land Board for the administration of the provisions, with the remedy of appeal/revision from the decisions of this fora. The legislation received the assent of the President on 31.12.1963 and some of the provisions thereof which concern the present pursuit were enforced with effect from 1.4.1964.
Sections 2(44) and 2(47) which define "plantation" and "private forest" are extracted hereunder:
"Plantation" means any land used by a person principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon (hereinafter in this clause referred to as 'plantation crops') and includes -
(a) land used by the said person for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of plantation crops or for the preparation of the same for the market;
(b) land contiguous to, or in the vicinity of or within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops, not exceeding twenty per cent of the area so cultivated and reserved by the said person and fit for the expansion of such cultivation;
(c) agricultural lands interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated by the said person with plantation crops, not exceeding such extent as may be determined by the Land Board [or the Taluk. Land Board, as the case may be] as necessary for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation.
Explanation-Lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and play grounds shall be deemed to be lands used for the purposes of Sub-clauses (a);
"private forest" means a forest which is not owned by the Government, but does not include-
(i) areas which are waste and are not enclaves within wooded areas;
(ii) areas which are gardens or nilams;
(iii) areas which are planted with tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamon; and
(iv) other areas which are cultivated with pepper, arecanut, coconut, cashew or other fruit-bearing trees or are cultivated with any other agricultural crop;
15. Chapter II of the enactment deals with provisions regarding tenancies. Section 3 exempts the transactions, as referred to therein subject to the stipulations enjoined, from the application thereof. Section 3(1)(vii) and 3(1)(viii) being the focal point of scrutiny demand extraction as well;
3 (vii) leases of private forests:
[Provided that nothing in Clauses (i) to (vii) shall apply in the cases of persons who were entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before the 21st January, 1961, under any law then in force or persons claiming under such persons; or]
3(viii) tenancies in respect of plantations exceeding thirty acres in extent;
Provided that the provisions of this Chapter, other than Sections 53 to shall apply to tenancies in respect of agricultural lands which are treated as plantations Under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (44) of Section 2;
15.1 Section 13 of the enactment mandates that notwithstanding anything contrary to the law, custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of Court, every tenant shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and no land from the holding shall be resumed except as provided in Sections 14 to 22. Section 72 proclaims that on a date to be notified by the Government in the official gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of Kudiyiruppus and holders of Karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure Under Section 13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase Under Sub-section (2) Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of that D.D
02/07/2015
Facts: In 1918, the appellant leased out land to the original lessee for 36 years. The land encompassed various areas suitable for cultivation, and the lessee was authorized to grow various crops at their discretion. The respondent-company was later inducted into the leased land. The appellant filed a suit for eviction and damages, claiming that the lease had lapsed with the passage of time.Issues...