Review petition dismissed by Kerala High Court. held that State of Kerel's submissions sought a rehearing contrary to judicial precedents and that no tenable ground for interference was made out.
Review petition dismissed; no interference warranted; earlierJudgment upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932
RP.No. 599 of 2010 --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.137/2005 Dated 16/11/2009
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT
THE KALPETTA ESTATE LIMITED, W-21/674 BEACH ROAD, ALLEPPEY-688012.
BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQ SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
R.P.No.599 of 2010 in M.F.A. No. 137 of 2005
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010
ORDER
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The State of Kerala and the Custodian of Vested Forests
are the review petitioners herein. The respondent sought to challenge the verdict passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.A.No.47 of 2001 seeking a declaration that the lands comprised in
plot Nos.1 and 2 formed part of the Estate which was being planted with, tea, coffee and cardamom. Referring to the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law, the claim preferred in respect of
plot No.1 was negated and interference was declined by this Court
as per judgment dated 16th November, 2009.
with boundaries on three sides and hence it was not part of the
R.P.No.599/2010 in MFA 137/2005
private forest to be vested with the Government and accordingly the verdict was passed in favour of the respondent/appellant with regard to plot No.2, particularly placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bhavani Tea & Produce Co.Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991 (1) KLT 666). The said verdict is sought to be challenged in this review petition at the instance of the State stating that while passing the said verdict this Court did not take into consideration of the fact that out of the major portion of plot No.2 having a total extent of 21.45 acres cultivation was effected only in a small portion of 2.5 acres and this being the position the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 92 ought to have been made applicable and thus the question ought to have been answered in favour of the State. It is also the contention of the review petitioners that the property in question, i.e. plot No.2, has already been alienated and that the respondent/appellant is no more the owner of the said property by virtue of the relevant
R.P.No.599/2010 in MFA 137/2005
orders and proceedings in the Company Petition filed before this Court.
presented by the State of Kerala is virtually to have a 'rehearing' of the matter; which does not come within the purview and scope of review. It has been made clear by the Apex Court on many an occasion that the review petition cannot be misunderstood as a substitute for appeal and that the power is very much limited. The law has been declared in this regard as
R.P.No.599/2010 in MFA 137/2005
per the the decision reported in Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455). We find that no tenable ground has been made out in the review petition. No interference is warranted. Review petition is dismissed accordingly.
J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge
vns
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds raised in the review petition constitute a permissible scope for review or amount to a prohibited rehearing.
Whether the High Court erred in not applying the Apex Court decision in State of Kerala v. Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. regarding land cultivation extent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhavani Tea & Produce Co.Ltd. v. State of KeralaRelied on¶29
Bhavani Tea & Produce Co.Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991 (1) KLT 666)
State of Kerala v. Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd.Referred¶32
State of Kerala v. Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryRelied on¶38
Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
STATE OF KERALA
THE KALPETTA ESTATE LIMITED
J.CHELAMESWAR
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
