State of Kerala and The Custodian of Vested Forests vs The Kalpetta Estate Limited

P.R. 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.

While coming to the case of plot No. 2, it was observed that it was an enclave within the Estate of the respondent with boundaries on three sides and hence it was not part of the 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 and Another Vs. Pullangode Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. and Others, 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 orders and proceedings in the Company Petition filed before this Court.

The facts and figures have been meticulously analysed by this Court while passing the verdict as revealed from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned verdict. The contention now raised in the review petition as to the extent over which cultivation has been effected, on comparison with the total extent of plot No. 2, has also been taken note of by this Court in paragraph 10 of the verdict and it was after considering the pros and cons, that the judgment was passed granting relief to the respondent/appellant with respect to plot No. 2.

The sum and substance of the review petition now 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 per the the decision reported in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, ). We find that no tenable ground has been made out in the review petition. No interference is warranted. Review petition is dismissed accordingly.