Review petition challenging a direction to restore forest properties was dismissed. The Court held that alleged fraud in concluded higher court proceedings does not justify reopening the matter via review of this Court's order directing compliance.
Review petition dismissed for failure of contest.
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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941
RP.No. 270 of 2019 IN WP(C). 15083/2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15083/2017 of HIGHCOURT
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. FOR FOREST
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN THE WP:
1 T.R.RADHAKRISHNAN SARAVANA SIGNATURE SUITES, 261, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, COIMBATORE-640 125
3 T.R. RAJESWARY W/O MOHAN, 16/2, 7TH CROSS ROAD, SREERAM AVENUE, VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE 641 041, (BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.R. RADHAKRISHNAN, 1ST RESPONDENT).
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RP.No. 270 of 2019 IN WP(C). 15083/2017
JUDGMENT
This review petition is filed by the respondents in the writ petition to review judgment dated 02.03.2018 whereby directions were issued to take into account Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this Court in MFA No.180/2008 dated 17.08.2015 and Ext.P4 order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4341/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and restore the property notified under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecological Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 in favour of the party respondents. The contention put forth by the petitioners is that there is fraud played by the party respondents in the review petition in order to secure orders from the Tribunal, this Court as well as from the Apex Court. It is also pointed that the survey numbers shown in the application before the Tribunal and the MFA filed before this Court by the party respondents are not true or correct and therefore, there are no properties available on ground for restoration as directed by this Court.
3
RP.No. 270 of 2019 IN WP(C). 15083/2017
allowed the said application filed by the owners of the properties and being aggrieved M.F.A No.338/2003 was filed by the State, which was also dismissed and the proceedings concluded there. Later party respondents preferred O.P. No.20814/2001 before this Court seeking to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal and in the M.F.A. by this Court. Accordingly directions were issued. However, the party respondents also have a case that out of 18.01 acres, two acres is in possession of the third parties that is found by the Tribunal also. Anyhow, while so proceedings were initiated as per Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecological Fragile Lands) Act 2003. Petitioner thereupon preferred O.A. No.20/2008. However, the Tribunal dismissed the same which was taken in M.F.A.No.180/2008 before this Court by the party respondents. The said MFA was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 17.08.2015 referred to in the writ petition. Aggrieved State preferred appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed as per Ext.P4 order. Thus the matter concluded there. It was thereafter that the party respondents have preferred W.P.(C) No.15083/2017 before this Court seeking directions to restore the property in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in the M.F.A.
RP.No. 270 of 2019 IN WP(C). 15083/2017
4
None of the contentions now raised in the review petition was available before this Court for consideration when the writ petition was disposed of by this Court. In my considered view the proceedings as per the EFL Act was concluded pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition and therefore the directions in Ext.P3 judgment has become final and conclusive.
5
RP.No. 270 of 2019 IN WP(C). 15083/2017
contention that since fraud vitiates everything, this Court is vested with the power to hold so and reopen the proceedings, I am unable to countenance the contentions, since if this Court ventures to do so, it will be a clear transgression to a concluded proceedings of Superior Court. Learned Government Pleader though placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in Niyamavedi v. Union of India , [2003 KHC 1338 : AIR 2004 Ker 81], it was a case where the apex court reopened the proceedings concluded there, consequent to the suppression of material facts and playing fraud. Such is not the situation available in this review petition, as is discernible from the material facts discussed above.
RP.No. 270 of 2019 IN WP(C). 15083/2017
6
any take place in the said proceeding, advantageous to the State.
In that view of the matter, there is no sustenance for the review
petition, review petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE
SCS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether alleged fraud in concluding proceedings can be the ground to review this Court's judgment directing compliance.
Whether this Court can reopen concluded proceedings before a Superior Court merely to address allegations of fraud.
State of Kerala Represented by its Secretary, Forest Department
T.R. Radhakrishnan Saravana Signature Suites
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
