Kerala High Court
Narayanamoorthy vs State on 1 August, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
Thursday, the 1st day of August 2024 / 10th Sravana, 1946
MFA (FOREST) NO. 168 OF 2011
I.A.NO.237/85 IN OA 63/1976 OF FOREST TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.
NAME OR NAMES(WITH FULL ADDRESS/ADDRESSES OF THE
APPELLANT/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. NARAYANAMOORTHY, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI.
2. KRISHNAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI.
3. ANANDAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI.
4. MANIKANDAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI.
5. PARAMASIVAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI.
6. VENKITACHALAM, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI (ALL ARE RESIDING AT
AKATHETHARA VILLAGE, KUTTIPULLY, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, PALAKKAD,
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2, 4 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER THE 3RD APPELLANT HEREIN
BY ADVS. M/S. T.C.SURESH MENON AND JIBU P. THOMAS.
NAME OR NAMES(WITH FULL ADDRESS/ADDRESSS OF THE PERSON/PERSONS WHO SHALL BE
IMPLEADED OR BROUGHT ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/THE APPLICANTS IN IA:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 2. CUSTODIAN-EX-OFFICIO SPECIAL SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE (FOREST SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKKODE-1
BY SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR FOREST
This MFA (Forest) having come up for orders on 01.08.2024 along with
MFA(Forest) 1/2015, the court on the same day passed the following:
p.t.o.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Acting C.J.,
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,
&
S.MANU, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A. (Forest Act) Nos. 168/2011 and 1/2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of August, 2024 Reference Order A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C.J. This matter has been placed before us on a Reference Order by the Division Bench. The scope of review under Section 8B of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") is the subject matter of the Reference. A Full Bench of this Court in Pankajakshy Amma v. Custodian of Vested Forest [1995 (1) KLT 358 (F.B.)] had interpreted the power of review and taken the view that the review power is not circumscribed by the ground referred to in Section 8B(1) of the Act and it has a wider power as seen from Section 8B(3) of the Act.
2. Two Division Benches of this Court had taken different views by interpreting the above Full Bench judgment. In Ibrahim v. Custodian of Vested Forests [2000 (3) KLT 812], one of the Division Benches, after referring to the Full M.F.A. (Forest Act) Nos. 168/2011 and 1/2015 ..2..
Bench decision, was of the view that the power of review is circumscribed by the grounds referred to in Section 8B(1) of the Act. Another Division Bench in Thankappan v. State of Kerala [2002 (3) KLT 275] was of the view that the power of review is not circumscribed by the grounds referred to under Section 8B(1) of the Act. Both Division Benches relied on the Full Bench judgment.
3. Apparent conflict of the interpretation of the Full Bench as above was noted by the Division Bench in Reference. The Division Bench even in the reference doubted the proposition of law laid in Pankajakshy Amma v. Custodian of Vested Forest [1995 (1) KLT 358 (F.B.)]. Accordingly, it was placed before us.
4. We note the statutory provisions of 8B of the Act. This was brought subsequently in the original enactment. Section 8B was incorporated in the year 1986 with retrospective effect from 1983. On a combined reading of the statutory provisions 8B(1) and 8B(3), it makes clear that the power of review referred to under Section 8B(3) of the Act is in relation to 8B(1) of the Act and it cannot be taken as an M.F.A. (Forest Act) Nos. 168/2011 and 1/2015 ..3..
independent provision conferring power on the tribunal to decide the review on any other ground other than the grounds mentioned under Section 8B(1) of the Act. However, we see that contrary view has been taken by the Full Bench. We also prima facie satisfied with the doubt raised by the Division Bench in Reference in the proposition of law laid down in Pankajakshy Amma v. Custodian of Vested Forest [1995 (1) KLT 358 (F.B.)]. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that this matter be placed before a Larger Bench for reconsideration of law laid down in Pankajakshy Amma v. Custodian of Vested Forest [1995 (1) KLT 358 (F.B.)].
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE Sd/-
S.MANU, JUDGE PR 01-08-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar