STATE OF KERALA Vs. AHAMADKUTTY HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition was filed on 5-1-1984 by the State of Kerala and the Conservator of Forests and Custodian of Vested Forests, Government of Kerala, who were the respondents in MFA No. 149 of 1980, under O.47 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.8C(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Ordinance No. 39 of 1983. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of MFA 149 of 1980 by judgment dated 4-3-1982. Subsequently the above said Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor of Kerala amending the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. By that Ordinance new S.5B, 8C and 8D were inserted after S.8A of the Vesting Act. Since a Bill to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the legislature could not be introduced and passed by the Legislative Assembly of Kerala, fresh ordinances were being promulgated from time to time. Finally the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Amendment Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) was passed. Under S.1(2) of that Act the said Amendment Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th of November, 1983, when Ordinance No. 39 of 1983 was published in the Gazette. Under S.8B of the Amendment Act, the Custodian is given the power to apply for review of decisions of Forest Tribunals. Under S.8C the Government is empowered to file appeal or application for review in certain cases. S.8D provides for stay of decisions and orders liable to be reviewed or appealed against. Under S.3 of the Amendment Act, any application for review filed under S.8B or 8C before the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been validly filed. S.8C(2) of the Amendment Act is the provision of law applicable to this petition. It is as follows:

(2.) In the review petition, which is in the prescribed form, apart from giving the required details, the petitioners have given the grounds for review in Para.10. One of the main grounds relied on by the petitioner is that the Additional Advocate General submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal that the order of the Forest Tribunal could be confirmed with two safeguards specified in Para.3 of the judgment and that amounts to a concession without authority from the petitioners. The petitioners also have raised the contention that the applicant before the Tribunal has not proved his right, title and interest and possession of the land on the appointed day, namely 10-5-1971. According to them that contention was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or this Court at the time of argument. Subsequently petitioners filed CMP 4866 of 1984 for amending the review petition to bring the review petition in accordance with the statutory provisions. We allowed that petition when the review petition was beard. The petitioners filed an affidavit dated 8-12-1986 producing 11 documents. The applicant before the Tribunal filed a counter affidavit dated 17-10-1986 and also an additional counter affidavit dated 9-6-1987.

(3.) The point to be decided is whether the judgment of this Court in MFA 149 of 1980 is liable to be reviewed.