Deciding Authority : Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement : 06/01/2000
Bench : K.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA
Facts : 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 (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act which are extracted below :
“(2) 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.
(3) 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 before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with other lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under section 82 of the said Act.”
Forest Tribunals were constituted for adjudicating the disputes regarding applicability of the said exceptions. Appellant raised a claim in respect of 20 acres of land as not vested in the Government. As the claim was disputed appellant filed a petition before the Forest Tribunal for adjudication for the dispute. He mainly contended before the Forest Tribunal that the said area fell within sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, but the Forest Tribunal repelled his claim and dismissed his petition. Thereupon he filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala under Section 8A of the Act, By judgment dated 13.1.1982 a Division Bench of 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 Act was subsequently amended by incorporating Section 8C therein as per which powers were conferred on the Forest Tribunal as well as the High Court to review the orders under certain conditions. The Government and the custodian of vested forests moved an application, in April 1984 before the High Court purporting to be under Section 8C(2) of the Act, for review of the earlier judgment of the High Court.
Second was that the counsel for the State failed to bring to the notice of the High Court before the judgment was passed on 13.1.1982 that the appellant had not filed return under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for determining the ceiling limit of the area of the land held by him) stating that the disputed land was private forest, and that such a failure on the part of the State’s counsel would amount to concession made by such counsel as envisaged in Section 8C(2) of the Vesting Act.
Judgement : It must be pointed out that any claim for exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act must necessarily be in respect of an area which was brought under cultivation by him before the appointed day i.e. 10-5-1971. In other words, if no cultivation was made by him on the land concerned before the said crucial date its owner cannot base a claim for exemption under sub-section (2). Appellant did not even mention in his claim petition that he had cultivated the said land before the said date nor did he mention in his evidence that the land was brought under 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 exercise any such power of review. So the Forest Tribunal can exercise power of review in conformity with Section 8C of the Act. In this case we are not concerned with the power of review of the Forest Tribunal. It was the High Court which reviewed its own judgment and so the question is whether the High Court has such power de hors Section 8C(2) of the Act. Power of review conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 135 of the Constitution is not specifically made applicable to the High Courts.
Does it mean that the High Court has ao power to correct its own orders, even if the High Court is satisfied that there is error apparent on the face of the record? High Court as a Court of Record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A Court of Record envelopes all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of Record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a Court of Record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it.
If such power of correcting its own record is denied to the High Court, when it notices the apparent errors its consequence is that the superior status of the High Court will dwindle down, Therefore, it is only proper to think that the plenary powers of the High Court would include the power of review relating to errors apparent on the face of record,In the aforesaid view of the matter we are not disposed to interfere with the impugned order though we are not deciding the question whether the failure to put forth a contention would amount to concession being made by the State counsel as envisaged in Section 8C(2) of the Act .
Held : Appeal Dismissed
By Tejasv Anand , IV th Year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL, DELHI .
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS