9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of his contention for exclusion of the land from vesting in the Government, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 besides producing eleven documents to prove that fugitive cultivation had been carried on in the area. There was no evidence - oral or documentary - adduced on the side of the State. It was on the strength of the evidence thus available that this court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the area - in dispute was under the personal cultivation of the respondent and that it was excluded from vesting in Government under section 3(3). 2. The State did not challenge this decision in appeal. They accepted it. It was long thereafter and taking advantage of the introduction of section 8C that the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests have filed this Review Petition. Section 8C (2) which is an extraordinary provision provides for a review under limited circumstances, and reads:- 8C (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the Government, if they are satisfied that any orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh. 4. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the decision of this court and the appreciation of evidence therein, they should have gone in appeal against the said decision. A remedy of review under section 8C (2) is not available to them merely because the State feels 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. What the Government Pleader would contend is that relevant material had not been brought to the notice of this court at the time the matter was argued earlier and therefore in law, there is a concession. Assuming that the proposition of law propounded is correct, we are not in a position to accept the submission of the Government Pleader on the facts of this case for the reason that this court did apply its mind to the evidence in the case and was satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2). and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall by virtue of the Act, stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall stand extinguished. The appointed day is 10 May 1971. The section is explicit that the vesting of private forests in the government is subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) provides that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of land comprised in private forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit Applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1) of 1964 or, any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto Subsection (3) provides that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide claims under section 3(2) or 3(3) namely exclusion of lands used or intended for personal cultivation. Nor is there any provision anywhere in the Act which obliges the Tribunal to refer such a dispute for the decision of the Custodian of Private Forests, as under section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act, 1963. On the terms of section 8, the Tribunal jurisdiction to decide such a dispute is unquestionable and that jurisdiction is plenary and absolute, not hedged in by any condition, that it should be referred for decision by the Custodian or be rendered by following any particular procedure. We are of the opinion that it is the right of the owner to approach the Tribunal for decision of the dispute under section 8 when once it is raised. That cannot be taken away by framing any rules. We are not in a position to accept the tall contention of the learned Government Pleader based on the Exemption from Vesting Rules that there is an exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to that extent. Needless to say, the Rules cannot deprive the Tribunal of the jurisdiction which is otherwise vested in it under the Act. 9. We may also mention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
