9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court has (de hors the said provision) power to review its own decision rendered b appeal filed under the Act. If both question are answered in the negative the appellant can succeed in getting the impugned order (of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala) annulled in his favour. Otherwise the impugned order will remain undisturbed. The facts which led to the said order are the following ; As per Section 3(1) of the Act, ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala stood transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the appointed day . The statute itself has fixed 10.5.1971 as the said appointed day. However, two exceptions were provided as per sub-sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the High Court concurred with the view of the Forest Tribunal that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. However, the Division Bench proceeded to consider whether appellant can have benefit of the exemption provided in Section 3(2) thereof. The Division Bench held thus ; We are not satisfied with the manner in which the claim of the appellant under Section 3(2) was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have found that there was sufficient evidence in the case to show that the appellant satisfied the definition of the word 'owner' so far as his claim under Section 3(2) was concerned. The Tribunal should have therefore held that the appellant was entitled to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate's counsel would amount to concession made by such counsel as envisaged in Section 8C(2) of the Vesting Act, Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned counsel for the appellant con-tended that power of the High Court to review the judgment or order passed under the Act is circumscribed under Section 8C(2) and that existence of the conditions specified in the sub-section is since qua non for such exercise. Learned counsel further submitted that in the application filed by the State for review of the earlier judgment no such conditions had been highlighted. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that the conces-sion envisaged in Section 8C(2) cannot be made out by implication as the concession should be express and direct. Section 8C consis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rala Law Times 300 has taken the view that a remedy of review under the sub-section is not available merely because the State feels that the decision is wrong on the merits, Section 8C(2) envisages a review only if the decision of this Court had been made on the basis of a concession made before it without the authority in writing of the Custodian or the Government, or due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars before the Tribunal or that an appeal against such decision could not be filed by reason of the delay in applying for and obtaining a certified copy of the decision. However, a Full Bench of the same High Court ia Pankajakshy Amma v. Custodian of Vested Forest, (1995) 1 Kerala Law Times 358, has held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der cultivation even on a single day prior to 10-5-1971. Hence, there is no question of considering the exemption under sub-section (2), But the High Court went out of his claim and found that he is entitled to exemption under Section 3(2). Therefore the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 13-1-1982 was vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. It is true that the application for review did not mention that there was any concession made by the Government counsel. Hence there is force in the contention that review could not be made on that premise. So far as Forest Tribunal is concerned its power of review can be traced to Section 8C. Unless law has conferred power of review the inferior courts and tribunals cannot exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court has recognised the aforesaid superior statue of the High Court as a court of plenary jurisdiction being a Court of Record. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol.10, para 713 it is stated thus : The chief distinctions between superior and inferior courts are found in connection with jurisdiction, Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court. An objection to the jurisdiction of one of the superior courts of general jurisdiction must show what ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
