9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Burden of Proof for Exclusion under Section 3(3) 2. Applicability of Section 8C(2) for Review 3. Jurisdiction of Forest Tribunal under Section 8 4. Procedure for Exclusion under Exemption from Vesting Rules Detailed Analysis: 1. Burden of Proof for Exclusion under Section 3(3): The primary issue concerned whether the respondent had adequately discharged the burden of proving that the land in question was excluded under section 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. The court noted that the respondent had examined himself and produced numerous documents to demonstrate that the area was under cultivation. The State, on the other hand, did not present any evidence. Both the Forest Tribunal and the High Court concluded that the land was under the respondent's personal cultivation, leading to its exclusion from vesting in the Government under section 3(3). The court emphasized that Section 8C does not permit a review based on the same materials already considered unless new conditions specified in Section 8C(2) are met. 2. Applicability of Section 8C(2) for Review: The State sought a review under Section 8C(2), which allows for a review under limited circumstances. The court highlighted that Section 8C(2) provides for review if an order was passed based on unauthorized concessions, failure to produce relevant data, or delays in filing appeals due to obtaining certified copies. The court found that none of these conditions were met in this case. The evidence had been thoroughly considered, and no new data or material was presented with the review petition. Therefore, the court rejected the State's contention that relevant material had not been brought to its notice earlier. 3. Jurisdiction of Forest Tribunal under Section 8: The court examined whether the Forest Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide disputes under Section 8, particularly concerning exclusions under Sections 3(2) and 3(3). The court referred to the Act's scheme, noting that Section 3(1) provides for the vesting of private forests in the Government, subject to exclusions in Sections 3(2) and 3(3). The court emphasized that Section 8 vests the Tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding whether any land is a private forest or whether any private forest has vested in the Government. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is comprehensive and not limited by any procedural requirements to refer disputes to the Custodian of Private Forests. 4. Procedure for Exclusion under Exemption from Vesting Rules: The State argued that exclusions under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) could only be obtained by following the procedure prescribed in the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974. The court rejected this contention, stating that the Rules provide an additional remedy but do not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 8. The Rules enable the Custodian to exclude lands but do not deprive the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes. The court affirmed that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is plenary and absolute, and failure to apply under the Rules does not preclude an owner from seeking adjudication under Section 8(1)(b). Conclusion: The court found no merit in the State's pleas and determined that none of the grounds specified in Section 8C(2) existed to entertain the review application. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.
|
