Dismissed

Manoj Singh v. Principle Chief Conservator of Forest

NGT21 Mar 2024Review Application No. 1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal dismissed this review application. The court held that attempting to reargue the merits or correct errors requiring reasoning rather than appearing on the face of the record does not justify granting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Review application no. 1/2024 is dismissed.

What the court decided

Manoj Singh vs Principle Chief Conservator of Forest — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 1/2024

¶5

¶6

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 560/2023

¶7

Manoj Singh Applicant(s)

¶8

Verses

¶9

Principle Chief Conservator of Forest Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 21.03.2024

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

For Review Applicant : Mr. Manoj Singh, applicant in person

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Applicant has appeared in person.

¶16

This review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 15.12.2023 whereby OA 506/2023 was decided. Applicant has sought review of the following part of para 7 of the judgment:

¶17

“...he could not show any provision, under which, such Kaccha road by use of land for passage, if created, is contrary to any law...”

¶18

However, when pointed out to the applicant that the sentence nowhere says that applicant could not show any provision under which making of kacha road by use of forest land for passage, if created, is

¶19

¶20

contrary to any law, for the reason that the order says that it is admitted by applicant and in fact, he could not show any provision under which such kacha road by use of passage, if created, is contrary to law, he could not dispute that reproduction is not correct. Applicant has nowhere stated in Review Application that he never admitted the fact that no provision of law has been violated. Once a fact is admitted and this is not disputed before us, the ground for review that he was appearing virtually and his connection was lost, appears to be an afterthought.

¶21

Be that as it may, we have still considered his ground for review that the act in question is in violation of Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FC Act 1980’ ).

¶22

Section 2 of FC Act 1980 reads as under:

¶23

“ 2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.—

¶24

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing—

¶25

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

¶26

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.

¶27

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section “non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation .”

¶28

“Non-forest purposes” are defined in the explanation. It clearly shows that if there is any breaking or clearing of forest land for the purposes other than re-afforestation, then it will an act for non-forest purpose.

¶29

¶30

In the present case, it is admitted case of applicant, as stated in para 7 of the OA, that the road was constructed around 2017 i.e., more than five years from the date when OA was filed which is the period of limitation prescribed under Sections 15(3) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He further says that road was subsequently widened but has not stated anywhere that subsequently there was any breaking of the forest land or clearing thereof for non-forest purposes, therefore, Section 2 is not attracted.

¶31

Applicant then sought to argue the matter further to show that the road has been constructed illegally but we find that it is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits which is not permissible in Review Application.

¶32

Recently, in Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620/2023, Civil Appeal No. 1661/2020, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. and other connected matters, decided on 31.10.2023, Supreme Court has observed that the parties are not entitled to seek a review of judgment merely for the purpose of re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. Applying principles of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is said that a review of judgment is open inter-alia if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. Supreme Court has culled down following propositions relevant for review of the judgment:

¶33

i. A judgment is open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or

¶34

an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶35

ii. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a

¶36

¶37

substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶38

iii. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

¶39

iv. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.

¶40

v. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

¶41

vi. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶42

vii. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶43