STATE OF KERALA Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS an application under S. 8c of the Kerala Private forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 26 of 1971, as amended by Act 36 of 1986, by which the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests seek a review of the judgment of this court in M. F. A. No 193 of 1979.

(2.) THE respondent herein had filed an application under s. 8 of Act 26 of 1971 on 31-5-1976 claiming that 43 acres of unsurveyed land in Agali Village , Mannarghat Taluk was cocoa plantation and was therefore not private forests as defined in Act 26 of 1971.

(3.) THE State filed M. F. A. No. 193 of 1979 against the order of the Forest Tribunal. THE appeal was heard by this count on 2-1-1985. In the judgment, which did not consider the merits of the appeal in detail, a division Bench of this Court found that Exts. A5 to A7 receipts for the purchase of cocoa seedlings from nurseries on 15-9-1970, 20-9-1970 and 28-9-1970 and the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 justified the finding of the Tribunal that the disputed area was principally planted with cocoa as on 10-5-1971. It was also held, that "now that the Tribunal has chosen to believe the evidence based on Exts. A5 to A7 and the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and there is nothing impossible so far as the planting after the date of the clear felling licence and the dates of Exts. A5 to A7 we do not think that a case for interference has been made out". THE appeal was, therefore, dismissed. We find from the certified copy of the judgment that an application for certified copy of the judgment was filed only on 3-4-1987 and the same was delivered on 6-7-1987. THE review petition is seen to have been filed on 31-3-1987, Certified copy of the judgment is seen filed on 10-7-1987. THE State and the Custodian of Vested forests seek a review of the judgment of this court in M. F. A. No. 193 of 1979 under S. 8c (2) of Act 26 of 1971 as amended by Act 36 of 1986. THE grounds urged in support of that application are that this court overlooked the fact that a permission for clear felling private forest will not, by itself, prove completing of felling and actual cultivation, that there was no acceptable evidence of purchase of seedlings, that the seedlings were not shown to have been planted in the disputed property, and that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions required under S. 3 (2) or 3 (3) of the Act.