IPE Vs. PRAMATHAN NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 614 acres of private forest belonged to the plaintiff. In the year 1111 he gave a licence extending for 11 years to one Unnikammu Sahib for clear-felling the timber. The licence was to expire in 1122 by which time the licensee was to cat and remove the entire trees. In the year 1119 when the licence was continuing plaintiff gave Ext. A1 lease of the land to the defendants for a term of 24 years for converting into a plantation. The lease was to take effect and lessees to take possession only in 1122 after the licence period and the clear-felling were over. Lessees were authorised to clear the bushes, converting the land into a plantation and surrender possession after 24 years. Clear-felling was over and they took possession. The land was converted into a plantation. The term is over. Plaintiff seeks to recover the rent and other amounts due under the lease on the allegation that the defendants are not entitled to fixity of tenure for the reasons that it is a lease of private forest and a plantation lease exempted under S.3(1)(vii) and (viii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Defendants denied availability of these two exemptions, claimed fixity of tenure and contended that the suit is not maintainable by reason of S.26(4) of the Act.

(2.) Accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal on reference that defendants are tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under Act 1 of 1964, the suit was dismissed. But in appeal the District Judge found that though clear-felling was done by the licensee, the property continued to be a private forest. On the grounds that it is a lease of private forest and a plantation lease it was found that the lease is exempted as claimed and the suit was decreed. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.

(3.) The contention that Ext. Al is a plantation lease exempted under S.3(1)(viii) of Act 1 of 1964 was rightly given up by the respondent at the time of argument. It is true that the property covers more than 30 acres which is one of the requisite conditions for the applicability of clause (viii). Nobody has any case that the lease is covered by sub clause (c) of clause (44) of S.2 in order to attract the proviso appearing after clause (viii) of S.3(1). If so in order to attract the exemption under S.3(1)(viii) the property at the time of the tenancy must be a plantation as defined in S.2(44). Nobody has any case that was so. It is admitted and it was also found by the District Judge that though at the time of Ext. A1 in 1119 clear-felling was not over, it was completed when the lessees took over under the provisions of Ext. Al in 1122. The view taken by the District Judge was only that even in spite of the clear-felling the land continued to be a private forest when the lease took effect. Nobody has a case that at that time it was a plantation either under S.2(44) or under clause (c) thereof. It is admitted on all sides that conversion into plantation was by the defendants and it was only thereafter. Therefore at the time of lease it was not a tenancy in respect of a plantation and hence the exemption under S.3(1)(viii) is not attracted. Tenancy of lands for the purpose of being converted into plantation is not prohibited or taken out of the provisions for fixity under the Act. In fact the lease of a fullfledged plantation coming within the definition of S.2(44) itself is given fixity except when it exceeds 30 acres. Conversion into plantation is one way of putting the property to agricultural use. Authorisation for that purpose in the lease deed or the subsequent conversion into plantation will not take the transaction out of the purview of tenancy. Transactions of lands satisfying the definition of plantation in S.(44) as on the date of lease having an extent of more than 30 acres alone will be covered by the exemption in clause (viii). Regarding tenancies of plantations coming under S.2(44)(c), as seen from the proviso appearing after clause (viii) of S.3(1), the legislature thought that it will not be fair or proper to deny the benefit of fixity to lessees who might have in course of time by their bard work developed the land into plantation. Any bow the scope of exemption is limited only to lands which were already plantations on the date of transaction. (See the Full Bench decision in Rt. Rev. Dr. Jerome Fernandez v. Be-Be Rubber Estate Ltd. ( 1972 KLT 613 ).