JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the notification dated 2.9.1993 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(1) of S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act') by which Government ordered no tree standing in 60 acres of Kalikavu Village involved in O. A. No. 2 of 1980 be uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that the tree constitutes a danger to life or property, or the tree is dead, deceased or windfallen. 2. Above mentioned property situated in R. S. No. 91 part was a portion of the Kottachokkadan Malavaram in Kalikavu Village, which was governed by the provisions of erstwhile Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. Contiguous to the said property, there are forests in the said Malavaram having 875 hectares. Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act 1949 applied to the private forests in the District of Malabar and South Kanara having a contiguous area exceeding 100 acres, which Act was enacted to prevent the indiscriminate distraction of private forests and interference with customary and prescriptive rights therein and for certain other purposes. That Act was later repealed by the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. 3. After coming into force of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, the assignors of the petitioners filed O. A. No. 2 of the 1980 before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri under S.8 of the said Act for a declaration that the property in question is not a private forest, and therefore the same is not vested in the Government under the said Act. Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the petition schedule property is a land to which Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act applied immediately before the commencement of Act 26 of 1971. It was found by the Tribunal that the property in question is surrounded on all sides by forest. There is a categorical finding that the property is full of forest trees and is surrounded by full of forest trees. It was found that the property in question had not been cultivated at all at any time. Tribunal held that the property is a 'private forest' under Act 26 of 1971. 4. There is a categorical finding that the property is full of forest trees and is surrounded by full of forest trees. It was found that the property in question had not been cultivated at all at any time. Tribunal held that the property is a 'private forest' under Act 26 of 1971. 4. Tribunal also held that the property was not under personal cultivation of the assignors of the petitioners at the commencement of Act 26 of 1971, and therefore they are not entitled to get exemption under S.3(2) of Act 26 of 1971. Tribunal, therefore, held that property in question is liable to be exempted under S.3(3) of Act 26 of 1971 and held that the property has not vested in the Government under the said Act. O. A. was therefore allowed holding that property is a private forest and the same has not vested in the Government under S.3(3) of Act 26 of 1971. Appeal, M. F. A. No. 648 of 1990 was preferred by the State, and this Court dismissed the appeal. It is, therefore, evident that the property in question is a private forest not vested in the Government under the provisions of S.3(3) of Act 26 of 1971 and the same was governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 before the commencement of Act 26 of 1971. 5. Private forest has been defined under S.2(f) of Act 26 of 1971 as any land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 applied immediately before the appointed day excluding lands which are garden or nilams as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom, etc. It is evident that the property in question was not cultivated with coffee, tea, rubber, cocoa, cardamom, etc. prior to the commencement of Act 26 of 1971. There is a categorical finding by the Tribunal that it is a forest land never cultivated by anybody. 6. Government of Kerala issued a notification dated 2.9.1993 in respect of the property in question, since it is a private forest as defined in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Notification was under S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. 7. 6. Government of Kerala issued a notification dated 2.9.1993 in respect of the property in question, since it is a private forest as defined in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Notification was under S.5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act. 7. The Kerala Preservation of Trees Act was promulgated by the state of Kerala, since there was indiscriminate felling and destruction of trees in the State of Kerala resulting in considerable soil erosion and destruction and loss of the timber wealth of the State. Before promulgation of the Act, Acts which were in force were, the Kerala Restriction on Cutting and Destruction of Valuable Trees Act, 1974, and the Kerala Preservation of Trees Ordinance, 1986. Kerala Restriction on Cutting and Distinction of Valuable Trees Act, 1974 restricted the cutting and destruction of valuable trees in private properties. Such restriction continued in the present Act as well. S.2(c) of the Act defines 'owner in relation to any land' as including a mortgagee, lessee, or other person having right to possession and enjoyment of that land. S.4 of the Act says no person shall without the previous permission in writing of the authorised officer, cut, uproot, or burn, or cause to be cut, uprooted, or burnt, any tree. S.4 restricts cutting of certain species of trees which have been defined in S.2(e) of the Act. Therefore before cutting trees mentioned in S.2(e) such as teak, rose wood, sandalwood, etc., permission of the authorised officer is necessary. However, if the tree mentioned in S.2(e) constitutes danger to life or property, or the tree is dead, diseased or windfallen, permission shall not be refused. It is a general provision applicable to all cases, whether land is a private forest or not. 8. Section 5 prohibits cutting of trees in notified areas. Section is extracted below: "5. Prohibition of cutting of tree in notified areas. It is a general provision applicable to all cases, whether land is a private forest or not. 8. Section 5 prohibits cutting of trees in notified areas. Section is extracted below: "5. Prohibition of cutting of tree in notified areas. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, or in any agreement or other arrangement, the Government may, with a view to preserving the tree growth in private forests or in the Cardamom Hills Reserve or in any other areas cultivated with cardamom, by notification in the Gazette, direct that no tree standing in any such area specified in the notification shall be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed except on the ground that -- (a) the tree constitutes a danger to life or property; or (b) tree is dead, diseased or windfallen; Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be deemed to prevent the pruning of any tree as required by ordinary agricultural or horticultural practices. (2) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the authorised officer, cut, uproot, burn or otherwise destroy or cause to be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed any tree in any area specified in the notification under sub-s.(1) on any of the grounds specified therein. Explanation I.- For the purposes of this Section the term 'tree' shall include any species of tree. Explanation II.- For the purposes of sub-s.(1) the expression 'private forest' means and land which immediately before the 10th day of May, 1971 was a private forest as defined in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971." (emphasis supplied) 9. As per the aforesaid provision, power is given to the Government to issue notification, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. This is an extra ordinary power given to the Government by the Legislature to issue notification de hors the judgment, decree or order of any court. Power is specifically given to the Government by S.5 of the Act so as to prevent soil erosion and destruction and loss of the timber wealth in the State. This is an extra ordinary power given to the Government by the Legislature to issue notification de hors the judgment, decree or order of any court. Power is specifically given to the Government by S.5 of the Act so as to prevent soil erosion and destruction and loss of the timber wealth in the State. Reference is also made to preservation of tree growth in private forests or in the Cardamom Hills Reserve or in any other areas cultivated with cardamom. Therefore if it is a private forest Government can issue notification under S.5. Meaning of 'private forest' is given in Explanation II to S.5 to mean any land which immediately before the 10th day of May, 1971 was a private forest as defined in the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. In the instant case, it is categorically found by the Tribunal that the petitioners' land is a private forest immediately before the 10th day of May, 1971, and the land was governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. Therefore petitioners' property squarely falls within the expression 'private forest' in Explanation II to S.5 of Act 26 of 1971. 10. It is the case of counsel for the petitioners that notification cannot take in all species of trees, eventhough Government has got power to restrict cutting and removal of trees, and the same can be done only in respect of the species of trees mentioned in S.2(e). Contention of counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, since definition of S.2(e) cannot be applied to S.5. In the Act definition section starts with the expression 'unless the context otherwise requires'. Meaning of the term 'unless the context otherwise requires' and also the principle that a word has to be understood in the context in which it was placed came up for consideration in several decisions, such as, Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asst. Commr. Tax Officer, 1994 (2) SCC 434 , Sales Tax Commr. Gujarat v. Union Medical Agency, AIR 1981 SC 1 , S. K. Gupta v. K. P. Jain, AIR 1979 SC 734 , Thomman v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 1964 KLT 62 , V. K. Balakrishnan v. Asoka Bank Ltd., 1965 KLT 1059 (FB), 1973 KLT 1059 (FB); Janaky v. Chellappan 1973 KLT 736 , Bourne v. Norwich Crematorim Ltd., 1967 (2) All. E.R. 576; Re Bidie (Deceased), 1948 (2) All. E.R. 995. E.R. 576; Re Bidie (Deceased), 1948 (2) All. E.R. 995. The definition of a word has to be understood in the context in which the word is placed, especially in a case where the definition clause starts with the expression 'unless the context otherwise requires'. It is a well settled principle that when a word or phrase has been defined in the interpretation clause, prima facie that definition governs whenever that word or phrase is used in the body of the statute. But where the context makes the definition clause inapplicable, a defined word when used in the body of the statute may have to be given a meaning different from that contained in the interpretation clause; all definitions given in an interpretation clause are, therefore, normally enacted subject to the usual qualification - 'unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context', or 'unless the context otherwise requires'. Even in the absence of an express qualification to that effect such a qualification is always implied: Sales Tax Commr., Gujarat v. Union Medical Agency, AIR 1981 SC 1 , 6 (paragraph 14).