M.M. THOMAS versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 06-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-·. 
M.M. THOMAS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
JA."lUARY 6, 20CO 
(K.T. THOMAS A."ID D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.[ 
B 
Kera/a Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971-Section 
3(1 f-Plivate Forel·ts stood transferred and vested in State Government from 
"appointed day"-Appellant claimed exemption regarding 20 acres of land 
under Section 3(3)-Forest Tribunal dismissed claim-High Court in appeal C 
hejd, appellant not entitled to exemption under Section 3(3) but under Section 
3(2)--High Court in review found that an· affirmative decision exempting ap-
pellant under Section 3(2) was error apparent on face of record-On appeal 
Held, High Court rightly allowed review as earlier judgment was vitiated by 
error apparent on face of record. 
Section 8C-f'ower of review by Forest Tribunal and High Court-Cer-
tain condition not fulfilled by State Government-Held, when there is an error 
apparent on the face of record High Court not only has power but a duty to 
correct it- Power not circumscribed by Section 8C(2). 
Constitution of India-Article 215-Revie~S cope of jurisdic-
tion-- Held, High Court competent to determine jurisdiction-High Court as 
a Court of Record has inherent power to correct records-When any apparent 
error noticed, it has not only power but a duty to correct i~Such power is 
plenary-Denial of such power will dwindle its superior status. 
D 
E 
F 
The lands of the appellant stood transferred to and vested in the 
State as per Section 3(1) of the Kerala Private J«orests (Vesting and 
Assignment) Act, 1971, according to which all private forests in the State 
stood transferred to and vested in the Government free from all en-
cumbrances from the "appointed day" fixed as 10.5.1971. Forest Tribunals 
had been constituted for adjudicating disputes regarding applicability of G 
exceptions to Section 3(1) of the Act. The appellant raised a claim in 
respect of 20 acres of land, which was disputed before that Tribunal. He 
contended that his case fell within the exception under Section 3(3) of the 
Act. His claim was dismissed, and he filed an appeal before the High Court 
under Section SA of the Act. 
33 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court was of the view that the appellant was not entitled 
to exemption under Section 3(3), but the appeal was allowed as the High 
Court was not satisfied with the manner in which exemption under Section 
3(2) was considered by the Tribunal. 
Section SC was subsequently incorporated in the Act, which con-
B ferred powers on the Forest Tribunal as well as the High Court to review 
their orders under certain conditions. The Government moved the High 
Court to review its earlier judgment. The review was allowed as the High 
Court found that an affirmative decision entitling the appellant to exemp-
tion under Section 3(2) was an error apparent on face of the record. 
c 
Aggrieved the appellant appealed to this Court contending that 
power of the High Court to revil!W is circumscribed under Section 8C(2) 
and the existence of the conditions in the sub- section is sine qua non for 
such exercise; that in the application filed for review no such conditions 
had been highlighted; and that the concession envisaged in Section 8C(2) 
D cannot be made out by implication as it should be express and direct. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The earlier judgment of the High Court was obviously 
E wrong on account of two reasons and since the contention based on section 
3(2) of the Act was upheld and it was rightly set aside by the High Court 
in Review. First is that the appellant did notmake a claim for exemption 
under that sub-section at all. On the contrary his claim itself was based 
on Section 3(3). Second is that appellant gave evidence in the case ex-
clusively for establishing his claim under Section 3(3). [39-E-F] 
F 
1.2. Any claim for exemption under Section 3(2) must necessarily be 
in respect of an area which was brought under cultivation by him before the 
appointed day i.e. 10.5.1971. If no cultivation was made by him on the land 
concerned before the said crucial date its owner cannot base a claim for 
G exemption. Appellant did not mention in his claim that he had cultivated the 
said land before the said date uor did he mention that the land Wits brought 
under cultivation even on a single day prior to 10.5.1971.[39-G-H] 
1.3. The High Court went out of the claim and found that he was 
entitled to exemption under Section 3(2). Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.