NEW WORLD INVESTMENT (P) LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FORESTS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter involved in both these Review Petitions is closely interlinked with each other and hence both the cases are dealt with together. Review Petition 730 of 2016 arises from the judgment rendered in W.P.(C)No.18339 of 2011, whereby Ext.P10 order of cancellation of lease over the property having an extent of 483.63 acres has not been intercepted. R.P. 741 of 2016 is against the verdict passed in W.A.No.89 of 2011, whereby the verdict passed by the learned single Judge in favour of the review petitioner, to have survey and measurement of the property concerned has been interdicted and the writ Appeal came to be allowed.

(2.) Heard Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. Sandesh Raja., the learned Spl.Govt. Pleader (Forest) appearing for the respondents at length.

(3.) The crux of the contentions raised by the review petitioners is that, the Bench was not correct in holding that the Government was not aware of the transfer effected to the petitioner, as the sale deed was registered pursuant to a verdict passed by this Court wherein the Government was a party and that violation of Section 22 of the Forest Act was never pointed out in Ext.P7 notice, by virtue of which, it could not be answered in Ext.P9 objections and hence the scope could not have been widened. It is also pointed out that there is no absolute prohibition under Section 22 of the Forest Act, 1961 and if the transfer of the leased property is by 'authorised person' of the Government, it is quite possible. The alleged conversion of the 'land use' was in respect of only one item of the properties and as such, the finding rendered treating all the properties together, detrimental to the rights and interests of the review petitioners, was quite wrong. Above all, if at all any violation was there, para 10 of the Lease Deed clearly envisaged issuance of 6 months' notice enabling the defaulter to cure the defect, which opportunity was denied to the review petitioners and it was omitted to be considered by the Bench while passing the verdict under challenge and hence the Review.