AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—These appeals respectively arise from O.A.Nos. 37/97 and 36/97 of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. Those original applications were decided initially by a common order dated 30.9.1999. The appeal filed against that order as M.F.A.No. 618/00 was allowed and the case remanded to afford an opportunity to the applicants to take out a Commissioner with the assistance of an expert to precisely and scientifically assess the age of the coffee plants to arrive at a finding whether it has been planted prior to 10.5.1971 or not. The parties were allowed as per the remand order to adduce further evidence, even by production of documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Though the applicants had claimed to have cultivated the lands in question with cardamom and coffee, the findings of the Tribunal in the order dated 30.9.1999, adverse to the applicants, regarding the properties allegedly cultivated with cardamom were confirmed in appeal. That having gone against the applicants, what survived for consideration after the remand is only the question relating to the coffee plantation and the nature of remand is one that provided clear indication as to the mode to be adopted by the Tribunal following the remand.
After remand, commission was issued for the specific purpose of assessing the age of the coffee plants with the assistance of an expert. Exts.C4 and C5 are the reports of the advocate commissioner and the expert respectively. The State filed objections to the commissioner''s report. It also applied to the Tribunal to send the matter for consideration, to a scientist of the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Thrissur or any other scientists from the Coffee Board as expert. The State had also filed I.A.45/07 for such relief. That application was opposed by the applicants taking the stand that the same cannot be allowed.
Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the materials on record. The Tribunal did not accept the stand of the State that the opinion of the expert should be set aside. The Tribunal had, in our view, quite rightly held, in law, that what was tendered is only expert opinion and that opinion is not a matter on which the court would sit to consider whether such opinion could be accepted or not, in the realm of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Tribunal rightly took the view that the opinion evidence is to be weighed by the court and depending upon the credibility and acceptability of the report of the expert, it could be acted upon, or otherwise, the opinion evidence would not be given any weight. Following this process, learned Tribunal found that the opinion evidence so rendered as per Ext.C5 was liable to be rejected and that no useful purpose will be served by remitting the report to any expert. The stand taken was clear and specific. The Tribunal had then looked at the quality of the evidence that the applicants had adduced to show that the coffee plants were planted before 10.5.1971. Assimilating the evidence on the basis of the different documents, the Tribunal found that there was no credible material to hold that the coffee plants in the disputed properties were planted before 10.5.1971.
We looked into Ext.C5 report of the expert. In our view, it is an opinion unsupported by any reason. The person who was deputed as the expert is a retired Deputy Director of the Coffee Board. For one thing, we may not doubt his knowledge of the science relating to coffee plantations. But, the fact of the matter remains that when an expert opinion is provided to a judicial authority for consideration, it should be of such quality that it would inspire confidence in the mind of the court or tribunal concerned. This requires reasons to be stated in support of the view of the expert. In Ext.C5 dated 12.2.2007, all that we read about evaluation of the age of the trees is that the age of the coffee plants are 40 to 42 years old Certain other statements are made about the variety of coffee plants that are cultivated etc. The expert also noticed that there are young coffee seedlings planted in small patches where old ones would have stood earlier. But, there is no reason or rationale enforcing the view expressed in Ext.C5.
Remember, the order of remand granted by this Court earlier, at the instance of the applicants, was to enable them with an opportunity to take out a commission with the assistance of an expert to precisely and scientifically assess the age of the coffee plants to arrive at a finding whether it has been planted prior to 10.5.1971 or not. The Advocate Commissioner says in his report that the expert told him that the age of coffee plants can be assessed on the basis of the number of the nodes. No detail about any plant which fell for consideration or examination by the expert, is reflected in the report. With this, we see no infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal refusing to rely on Exts.C4 and C5 to hold in favour of the applicants.
Learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on Ext.A2 which is the sole document in point of time before 10.5.1971, the crucial date. We have examined that document. The transferee there under is one Imbichi. That document is dated 24.1.1970 while it is registered only on 27.4.1970. The said document states of an oral agreement for sale some time in 1956-57 and handing over of possession to Imbichi in 1957. We would recall for ourselves that 1970-71 and 1956-57 are crucial periods in the legal history of the lands in Kerala as far as private forests are concerned. The Kerala Private Forests (Assumption of management) Act of 1957 came in early 1958 and the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Ordinance of 1971, which has since been repealed by the Act that applies to this litigation, came in 1971. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accede to the argument that Ext.A2 was a document executed innocently and bonafide, without comprehending any consequence that may befall, on the basis of legislations which were still in waiting. We, in spite of our anxious considerations, stand dissuaded from treating the contents of that document as bonafide and truthful recitations.
With this, the Learned Counsel for the appellant made a very persuasive request for issuance of a fresh commission from this Court by appointing an advocate or an expert as may be found necessary and proper. He says that an application has been placed on record for such relief and also by placing on record the photographs of the plantation in question. These applications are strongly objected to, on behalf of the State. Suffice it for us to say that an order for admission of additional evidence in an appeal would stand governed by the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We do not find any ground to hold that the appellants were, in any manner, deprived from utilising the opportunity given by this Court through the order of remand that it made more than six years ago, on 11.12.2006. It is, in our view, too late to re-open the whole issue. We do not find any legal or factually justiciable ground on the scales of justice, to let the applicants take out a commission for ascertaining the very same matters as were sought to be ascertained following the earlier order of remand. In this context, we cannot but notice that the State Government''s application I.A.45/07 before the Tribunal having been objected to by the appellants herein, there is no room or reason to extent to the appellants the luxury of having further extension of this litigation.
For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals fail. They are accordingly dismissed. We refrain from imposing an order of costs in favour of the respondents, the State and the Custodian.