IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 11 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MFA.552/1990 Dated 19/10/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S PODDAR PLANTATIONS LTD. RIPON ESTATE, MEPPADI POST, SOUTH WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.VENKATAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS & CONVERVATOR OF FORESTS, KOZHIKODE. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, ALONG WITH UNNUMBERED RP 2008 & RP NO.133 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.Nos.11 & 133/08 in MFA No.552/90 & Unnumbered R.P. of 2008 in R.P.890/03 in MFA 552/90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. These three review petitions are being disposed of by this common order, since the issue involved in them is common; and also since all these petitions arise from the very same judgment in M.F.A.No.552/1990. 2. While R.P.No.11/2008 is at the instance of the appellant/applicant, the other two review petitions are at the instance of the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests, Kozhikode. 3. We have heard Sri.V.R.Venkatakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel who appears for petitioner/appellant and Sri.Renjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. We have also perused the entire materials available on record. 4. M/S Poddar Plantations Limited (petitioner/appellant) had filed an application before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 seeking a declaration that 419.6350 hectares of land had not vested with the Government under the Act as private forest, and that the aforementioned land was required to plant trees for the ancillary purpose of fire wood to cater to the needs of the Estate. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the respondents were not liable to restore any land that had vested with the Government to the R.P.11 & 133/08 in MFA 552/90 & Z.R.P. of 2008 in R.P.890/03 in MFA 552/90 :: 2 :: petitioner/appellant. 5. MFA No.552/1990 filed against the above order was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated March 31, 2003 affirming the order of the Tribunal. However, it was held that appellant/claimant would be entitled to get exemption in respect of plot Nos.4 and 5, having an extent of 3.6500 and 0.6200 hectares respectively, which were found falling within the Tea estate. 6. The above judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the petitioner/appellant. By order dated August 22, 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos.5202-5203 of 2005, their Lordships directed this court to record a finding as to whether it was 211.1628 hectares or 246.8235 hectares that had vested under Act 21 of 1971. Pursuant to the above direction this court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, found that 246.8235 hectares had in fact vested with the Government as private forest. 7. R.P.11/08 is filed by the appellant seeking review of the above judgment. It is contented by the learned Senior counsel that this court having entered a finding that the actual area vested with the Government as private forest being only 246.8235 hectares, the remaining extent out of the area which was sought to be exempted should have been restored to the possession of the petitioner/appellant. 8. In this context, it may be noticed that the total area in respect of which the petitioner had sought exemption before the Forest Tribunal was 419.6350 hectares (1036.94 acres). Petitioner had admitted that it was an R.P.11 & 133/08 in MFA 552/90 & Z.R.P. of 2008 in R.P.890/03 in MFA 552/90 :: 3 :: undeveloped area. The developed area according to the petitioner was confined to 607.6361 hectares (1501.50 acres). Admittedly petitioner had got title only to this area of 607.6361 hectares which had been developed as Tea Estate. Learned Senior counsel submits that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in RP 343/03, it was conceded that in notification No.D.1072/88 dated 3-6-1989 only an extent of 246.5235 hectares had been notified as vested. In the counter affidavit, it was further stated that the remaining extent of 173.1115 hectares out of the total extent of 419.6350 hectares had not yet been notified. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that since admittedly an extent of 173.1115 hectares had not been notified as vested forest under the notification referred to above, this court ought to have directed the respondents to restore possession of the said extent of land to the petitioner invoking the power under Section 4(1) A of the Act. 9. We are afraid the above contention is wholly misconceived and untenable. The apex court directed this court only to enter a finding with regard to the exact extent of land that had vested in the State Government. Nothing more nothing less. This court had completed the said exercise by judgment dated October 19, 2007. In our view, this court cannot and need not go beyond the direction issued by the apex court. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. In its earlier judgment dated March 31, 2003 this court had considered all the contentions raised by R.P.11 & 133/08 in MFA 552/90 & Z.R.P. of 2008 in R.P.890/03 in MFA 552/90 :: 4 :: the appellant with regard to its claim for restoration of possession by granting declaration as provided under Section 8 of the Act. This court found that the petitioner would be entitled to claim exemption of only 4.2700 hectares covered in plot Nos.4 and 5 which would fall within the estate of the petitioner as reported by the Forest Range Officer in Annexure R1(a) report. In other words, this court in its earlier judgment had categorically found that the petitioner would not be entitled to get possession of any other extent of land out of the vested forest. 11. Further, the two grounds that are raised by the petitioner in the review petition will not fall within the ambit or scope of review as envisaged under Order 47 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Thus, having considered the entire aspects of the matter, we do not find any merit in the review petition filed by the petitioner. It is therefore dismissed. In view of the above order passed by us, learned Government Pleader submits that R.P.No.133/08 as well as the unnumbered review petition are not pressed. Accordingly, they are dismissed as not pressed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes