IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16623 of 2005(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CO.LTD., BEING AN EXISTING CO. REG.UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CO. ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT WALIACE BLDG. WALLACE STREET, FOR, MUMBAI-400 001 AND ITS TEAK PLANTATIONS BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DEVAKARAN MOORKATH,B.B.T.C., W.ISLAND, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETAR MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, HAVING HIS OFFICES AT PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C.S.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FORESTS & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CUSTODIAN, VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD-7. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.M.POULOSE FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.16623/2005-D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The company owned a Teak Plantation in Survey No.160/21A1A1 of Poothady (now Irulam) Village in South Wayanad (now Sulthan Bathery) Taluk. Under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, the Government notified it as a vested forest. The petitioner challenged the Act itself in O.P.No.17866/1994 which was dismissed as per Ext.P1 Judgment. Earlier, seeking for a total exemption of these properties, the petitioner had moved the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.A.No.211/1974. The Forest Tribunal allowed the same which was reversed in M.F.A.No.337/1978 by this Court. The petitioner had filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. 2. Presently, the claim is with regard to 15 acres of property under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It is pointed out that the above aspect is not covered by the Judgments in M.F.A No.337/1978 and, therefore, it is open to the petitioner to seek exemption by relying upon Section 3(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. W.P.(C). No.16623/2005 -:2:- 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that all the aspects are covered against the petitioner in the light of the Judgments in M.F.A.No.337/1978, Civil Appeal No.4108/1984 and O.P.No.17866/1994. It is pointed out that the reliefs now claimed are barred by the principles of res judicata. 4. It is a case where the petitioner wanted an exemption of the whole property before the Forest Tribunal and the matter has become final. The present claim was not at all raised before the Forest Tribunal or before this Court or before the Apex Court. Therefore, clearly the contentions are barred by the principles of res judicata. 5. The learned Government Pleader relied upon the decision of this Court in Ayichutty v. State of Kerala [2002 (2) KLT 125] to contend that the contentions raised by the petitioner are barred by the principles of res judicata. It was held by this Court that the principles of res judicata is applied by the courts in order to give a quietus to the dispute between the parties so that same parties shall not be vexed of successive litigations on the same subject matter or cause of action. Herein, going by the pleadings itself, it can be seen that the petitioner was worsted in the earlier litigations which orders have W.P.(C). No.16623/2005 -:3:- become final. It cannot be said that a claim for exemption under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, can be raised at this distance of time and that too in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even for getting an exemption, the remedy of the petitioner was to approach the Forest Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms