Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is coming to this Court a second time against the order of the Land Board fixing the extent of the excess land to be surrendered by him. By the proceedings of the Land Board dated 12-6 -1974 the petitioner was directed to surrender 1.34 acres being the extent of land found in excess of the ceiling area. He filed C. R. P. No. 837 of 1974 before this Court and contended that he is not in possession of any excess land if the lands held by him are properly classified and the ceiling area fixed. His grievance was that an extent of 2 acres 74 cents in Sy. No. 741/2 and 70 cents in Sy. No. 579/8 is only a dry land and not coconut garden as shown in the draft statement. This Court set aside the order of the Land Board for re-consideration in view of the two conflicting reports about the nature of the lands and conversion of some of them after 1-4-1964. On remand the Secretary of the Land Board was deputed to make a local verification and on the basis of bis report a fresh order was passed by the Land Board classifying a major portion of the above land as garden land and fixing the excess land to be surrendered. According to the Land Board, in 70 cents there are 15 bearing coconut trees aged 60 to 75 years, and 11 stumps of coconut trees cut. Ia Sy. No. 741/2, 2 acres 74 cents, there are 88 coconut trees. It is inter-cultivated with rubber plants planted in the year 1970. An extent of 35 cents is cultivated with tapioca and an extent of 4 cents is rocky. From this the Land Board has drawn an inference that' as on 1-4-1964 the principal cultivation in the land was coconut and the principal income from the above property was from coconut trees though tapioca, ginger etc. were also cultivated. Therefore, the entire extent of the above survey numbers excepting 35 cents cultivated with tapioca and 4 cents of rocky portion was treated as coconut garden'. 2. The question is whether this inference is correct in law. were also cultivated. Therefore, the entire extent of the above survey numbers excepting 35 cents cultivated with tapioca and 4 cents of rocky portion was treated as coconut garden'. 2. The question is whether this inference is correct in law. 'Garden' is defined in S.2 (15) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as meaning "land used principally for growing coconut trees, arecanut trees or pepper vines, or any two or more of the same." This definition is more or less a copy of the definition of 'garden land' in S.3 (g) of the Malabar Tenancy Act which reads as follows: - "Garden land" means any land used principally for growing coconut trees or arecanut trees or both."' Decided cases are few to illustrate the scope of this definition. In Kunhammad Koya v. Gopala Menon (1942 M.W.N. 667= AIR. 1943 Mad. 181) Somayya J. held that in considering whether a certain land is a garden land or not within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act the principal user of the land as a whole is the test, i.e., whether it was used principally for growing fruit-bearing trees. A plot of land measuring 78' by 881/2' where there were buildings, 7 coconut trees of which 6 were stated to be 50 years old and one 45 years old and a few plaintain trees was held to be not a garden land. The learned judge at page 668 observed thus: - "On these materials I consider it impossible to sustain the conclusion of the lower court, that the plot 3 as a whole satisfies the terms of S.3 (g). It will be noted that S.3 (g) requires that the land should be used principally for growing fruit-bearing trees. It is clear that so far as the coconut trees are concerned they were all planted more than 45 years ago and having regard to the large area of plot No. 3, the number of the trees is negligible. No coconut trees have been planted during the last 45 years. The plantain trees are 21 in number. In a plot which is principally used as a residential house, there are always a few plantain trees and a few coconut trees and it will be preposterous to say that the whole plot including the building is used principally for growing fruit-bearing trees. The plantain trees are 21 in number. In a plot which is principally used as a residential house, there are always a few plantain trees and a few coconut trees and it will be preposterous to say that the whole plot including the building is used principally for growing fruit-bearing trees. If it is the principal user that is to be regarded, the plot as a whole is principally used for residential purposes." The same learned judge in Gopalan v, Sankaranarayana (AIR. 1946 Mad. 130) observed at page 132 thus: - "As now held by this Court in 1942-2 M.L.J. 744 (= 51943 Mad. 181) a plot which is principally used as a residential house cannot by reason of the fact that there are a few coconut trees or other fruit-bearing trees be said to be "land used principally for growing fruit-bearing trees", which is the definition of a garden land." In that case a major portion of the properties had been built upon and the few coconut trees and other trees occupied only a small portion compared to the whole. Mr. Kuttan's argument is that if the number of coconut or arecanut trees in a land occupy only a small portion compared to the whole it cannot be said that the land is principally used for growing coconut trees or arecanut trees. Only if mote than 50 coconut trees are grown on an average in one acre of land, according to him, that land may be called a garden used principally for growing coconut trees. 3. There is much force in this contention. To constitute a'garden' as defined in the Act it is not necessary that the land should be used principally for growing anyone alone of the above categories of cultivations. It is enough if the land is used is principally for growing either coconut trees or arecanut trees or pepper vines or any two or more of the same. But, that is not enough for the purpose of classification of lands for the purpose of ceiling and surrender of excess land. The ceiling area is fixed with reference to standard acres and in respect of garden lands standard acre is fixed with reference to the nature of cultivation in a garden. (See Schedule II of the Act). Standard acre will vary according to the nature of the garden land. The ceiling area is fixed with reference to standard acres and in respect of garden lands standard acre is fixed with reference to the nature of cultivation in a garden. (See Schedule II of the Act). Standard acre will vary according to the nature of the garden land. If the land is used principally for growing coconut trees, the standard acre will be equal to as ordinary acre in majority of the Districts In other districts it is not so. Similarly, if the land is used principally for growing arecanut trees, one-half of an ordinary acre will be taken as a standard acre. Similarly, in the case of gardens principally used for growing peppervines, a standard acre will not be equivalent to an ordinary acre Again, in the matter of fixing compensation, the rate per acre of a garden land used principally for growing coconut trees is different from the rate fixed for a garden land used principally for growing arecanut trees or peppervines. It is not with reference to the other kinds of trees that the expression 'used principally for growing coconut or arecanut trees or peppervines' is mentioned in the Act. In such land the principal growth must be either coconut trees or arecanut trees or peppervines, and unless such cultivation exists in major portion of the land normally that land may not be classified as land used principally for growing one or other of the varieties of trees required to make it a garden for fixing the standard acre. A land cannot be said to be used principally for growing any category of trees if the number of such trees when compared to the extent is small. For the purpose of revenue settlement in Travancore a land was taken as fully planted if there were 100 or more coconut trees or 800 and more arecanut trees in one acre. For land acquisition purposes also, if the market value is to be determined on income basis one cent was set part for one coconut tree. In the Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, a land is deemed to be fully planted if there are 100 coconut trees or 720 arecanut trees in one acre of land. In the Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 80 trees are taken as normally grown in one acre. At the time of enacting the Land Reforms Act, the Legislature was aware of these laws. In the Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 80 trees are taken as normally grown in one acre. At the time of enacting the Land Reforms Act, the Legislature was aware of these laws. Any land which is not, with reference to its normal capacity to have anyone of the above varieties of trees, used fully for that should have at least half of the number of such trees per acre to call it'used principally'. The expression 'principally' is used in contradistinction to 'partly' or"wholly'. So in classifying a garden as land used principally for growing any variety of trees it is reasonable to infer that the intention of the Legislature was that in such land the number of such trees should be at least half of the number of trees an ordinary acre of land can normally contain. 4. In this view the nature of the land and the number of trees referred to earlier would show that it does not satisfy the requirement of a land used principally for growing coconut trees. In Sy. No. 741/2 there are only 88 coconut trees and its extent is 2 acres 74 cents In the other there are only 15 coconut trees in an extent of 70 cents. These trees are seen to be more than 40 to 45 years old. There are no young trees to indicate that the owner has any idea to use the land principally for growing coconut trees. The recent use to which the land is put is for rubber cultivation and tapioca. So, it is not possible to hold that on the day when Land Reforms Act came into force these lands were used principally for growing coconut trees. These lands can therefore only be treated as other dry land in fixing their standard acre. These lands are situate in Thodupuzha Taluk which was part of Ernakulam District on the date the Act came into force. 2 1/2 ordinary acres will constitute one standard acre. The petitioner who represents a family with 7 members can have 12 standard acres as the ceiling area. On this basis, calculating the standard acre and the ceiling area the petitioner will not be having any excess area to surrender. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. No costs. Allowed.