IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 16400 of 1999(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- V.T.MATHEW, VARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.CHELLAMCODE, 9VIA) VADUVANCHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT – 673 581. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT. NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R.), LAND TRIBUNAL, MANANTHAVADI. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, WAYANAD. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/02/2008 IN C.M.P.NO.35441/1999) BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FORESTS) SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.26675/1999 IN O.P.NO.16400/1999 B DISMISSED 12/02/2008 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD. 15/03/1997, IN THE NAME V.T.MATHEW. EXT.P2: COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD. 22/12/1976 IN THE NAME OF V.T.JOHN. EXT.P3: COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/03/1977 IN THE NAME OF ANNAMA JACOB. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.137 OF A963 OF S.R.O., VYTHIRI DTD. 5/11/1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND BOARD, SOUTH WAYANAD DTD. 18/10/1975. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPENSATION ROLL IN THE NAME OF ANNAMMA JACOB. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMPENSATION ROLL IN THE NAME OF V.T.JOHN. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE TO V.T.MATHEW FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 23/05/1999. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE TO SMT. ANNAMMA JACOB FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 29/05/1999. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE TO SHRI. P.T.(V.T.)JOHN, FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT 19/05/1999. Kss ..2/- ...2.... O.P.NO.16400/1999 B 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF VFC NOTIFICATION ITEM NO.22. EXT.R4(B): PHOTOSTAT EXTRACT OF THE SURVEY SKETCH. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 18/08/2000 IN WA NOS.2512/99 AND 686 & 687/2000 BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OFKERALA. EXT.R4(D): COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 23/03/1999 IN O.P.NO.13137/97 BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.16400 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Exts.P8, P9 and P10, seeks a direction to prohibit the respondents from interfering with Exts.P1, P2 and P3 and seeks a direction to refrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the property included in Exts.P1, P2 and P3. 2. Briefly put the petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner, his brother and sister were issued with Exts.P1, P2 and P3 purchase certificates by the Land Tribunal, Sulthan Bathery. By Exts.P8, P9 and P10 petitioners have been called upon to show cause why Exts.P1, P2 and P3 certificates should not be cancelled. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for forest. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no authority for the Land Tribunal to issue Exts.P8, P9 and P10 and he relies on the decision reported in Noorjahan v. State of Kerala (1988(2) K.L.T. 925). I find that a learned Single Judge of this court in Vijayan v. Damodaran (1982 KLT SN 24) has taken the O.P. 16400/1999. 2 following view: “The court can suo motu correct a patent error due to inadvertance, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even after the expiry of the period of limitation for an application for review. The jurisdiction to correct an inadvertant mistake is inherent in every court or Tribunal. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its own order has, therefore, no substance.” What is stated in substance in the notices are of course that the lands which were subject matter of Exts.P1, P2 and P3 were private forests vested with the State under the Vesting Act. It is the case that there is a suppression of true facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt points out that in the impugned proceedings there is reference to the direction of the District Collector. There is reference to complaint that it was obtained by suppression of truth that the notices were issued. Going by the decision of this court, it is clear that if there is a patent mistake or fraud, it is open to the Tribunal to set aside the order. 4. In view of the fact that the impugned proceedings are only notices, I would think that it may not be proper for this court to interfere with the matter in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. I make it clear O.P. 16400/1999. 3 that it is open to the petitioner to raise all contentions including the contention that there is no basis for the notices. Subject to the same, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not be dispossessed pursuant to the impugned orders. I do not see any basis for the said apprehension. If the petitioner is in possession, the question of dispossession would arise only on the basis of the final decision, if it is adverse to the petitioner. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb O.P. 16400/1999. 4 K.M.JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------- O.P. No. 16400 OF 1999 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT 12.2.2008.