9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 611 - SC - Indian LawsApplication filled before the Forest Tribunal u/s 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971 ( the Act ) - seeking a declaration that the application scheduled property was not a private forest liable to be vested in the Government - claimed exemption u/s 3(2) - High Court exercise its jurisdiction invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Whether the view of the Forest Tribunal that it could not review the order in exercise of power u/s 8B of the Act notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal from its decision at the stage of admission need not be considered at this stage - HELD THTA - It was not a case of the appellant merely putting forward a false claim or obtaining a judgment based on perjured evidence. This was a case where on a fundamental fact of entitlement to relief he had deliberately misled the Court by suppressing vital information and putting forward a false claim false to his knowledge and a claim which he knew had no basis either in fact or on law. It is therefore clear that the order of the Forest Tribunal was procured by the appellant by playing a fraud and the said order is vitiated by fraud. The fact that the High Court on the earlier occasion declined to interfere either on the ground of delay in approaching it or on the ground that a Second Review was not maintainable cannot deter a Court moved in that behalf from declaring the earlier order as vitiated by fraud. The High Court as a court of record has exercised its jurisdiction to set at naught the order of the Forest Tribunal thus procured by the appellant by finding that the same is vitiated by fraud. There cannot be any doubt that the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has the power to undo a decision that has been obtained by playing a fraud on the court. The appellant has invoked our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. When we find in agreement with the High Court that the order secured by him is vitiated by fraud it is obvious that this Court should decline to come to his aid by refusing the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The plea that the second review was not maintainable that the Division Bench could not have ignored the earlier orders of the High Court dismissing the appeal at the stage of admission and the dismissing of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the first review are all of no avail to the appellant. In this case the Forest Tribunal had also been moved by way of review and that tribunal refused to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 8B of the Act and nothing stands in the way of the High Court setting aside that order on a finding that the original order from the Forest Tribunal was secured by playing a fraud on the Tribunal. Equally nothing stood in the way of the High Court reviewing the judgment in O.P. in which a mandamus was issued by the High Court to restore possession of the application schedule property to the appellant. Similarly nothing stood in the way of the High Court in allowing O.P. filed by a body of citizens challenging the restoration of 20 acres of virgin forest to the appellant in presumed enforcement of the order in O.A. and passing the necessary order nullifying the original order. The fact that the High Court has chosen to review the earlier order on the petition for condonation of delay in filing the first review petition and then to exercise the power of review cannot be of any moment in the light of the what we have stated. In any event as we have indicated this is a fit case where we should clearly decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to come to the aid of the appellant to secure to him the fruits of the fraud practiced by him on the Forest Tribunal and the High Court. Thus we find no merit in the argument that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Forest Tribunal at this distance of time. We thus confirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss these appeals with costs. We hope that this judgment will act as an eye opener to the Forest Tribunals and the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction in dealing with claims (obviously now they are belated claims) for exemption or exclusion u/s 8 of the Act. It behoves the Forest Tribunals and the appellate court to carefully scrutinise the case of title and possession put forward by claimants as also the identities of the lands sought to be claimed while entertaining applications u/s 8 of the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's claim to the land under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. 2. The legitimacy of the High Court's decision to set aside the Forest Tribunal's order based on alleged fraud. 3. The jurisdiction of the High Court to review its own decisions and the orders of the Forest Tribunal. 4. The applicability of Article 215 of the Constitution of India in setting aside judgments obtained by fraud. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Appellant's Claim to the Land: The appellant claimed to have purchased 22.25 hectares of land in 1968 and sought a declaration that 20 acres of this land were not private forest liable to be vested in the Government under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The appellant argued for exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act and alternatively under Section 3(3) of the Act, asserting that the land was under his personal cultivation and within the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Forest Tribunal initially upheld the appellant's claim under Section 3(3) but rejected the claim under Section 3(2), finding the land to be forest. The State's objections included the appellant's lack of valid title and the land not being cultivated. 2. Legitimacy of the High Court's Decision Based on Alleged Fraud: The High Court, upon review, found that the appellant had obtained the Forest Tribunal's order by fraud. The appellant had sold or transferred almost the entire extent of land he claimed to own before filing the application with the Forest Tribunal. The High Court determined that the appellant had no title or possession over the land when he made the claim, thereby misleading the Tribunal with false information and suppressing vital facts. The High Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order obtained by fraud. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Review Decisions: The High Court exercised its jurisdiction as a court of record to nullify the decision of the Forest Tribunal, which was found to be vitiated by fraud. The appellant's contention that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction was dismissed. The High Court's power to review its own decisions and those of the Forest Tribunal, especially when fraud is involved, was upheld. The High Court's action was supported by precedents indicating that judgments obtained by fraud can be vacated by the court that rendered them. 4. Applicability of Article 215 of the Constitution of India: The High Court invoked Article 215, which grants it the power to act as a court of record and to set aside decisions obtained by fraud. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's application of this article, emphasizing that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that courts have inherent power to vacate judgments obtained by fraudulent means. The Supreme Court cited various legal authorities and precedents to support this position, including decisions from Indian and international jurisprudence that establish the principle that fraud unravels all. Conclusion: The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision to set aside the Forest Tribunal's order, finding that the appellant had procured the order by fraud. The appellant's claims were based on false information, and the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 215 to nullify the fraudulent order. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the Supreme Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny by Forest Tribunals and appellate courts in dealing with claims under Section 8 of the Act.
|
