STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus JOSEPH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 25-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
685
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
v.
JOSEPH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9912 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971:
ss. 3(3) and 8 – On facts, respondent-landowners owned a piece of
land with rubber plantation and other trees – Claim of exemption
of the said land from its vesting in the State – Entitlement to – Tribunal
declared the land as exempted from being vested in the State – High
Court set aside the order of the tribunal – In appeal before this
Court, matter remitted to the High Court – After remand, the High
Court upheld the order passed by the tribunal – On appeal, held:
Issue as regards interpretation of s.3(3) and holding of the land
and its intended use by the landowner having already decided by
this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the State cannot raise
the same plea again in the second round of litigation after remand
– Tribunal rightly based its finding on the documentary evidence
filed by the respondents keeping in view the requirements of s.3(3),
that the title was derived by the respondents in relation to the land
prior to the appointed day and that the land was found in actual
use by the respondents for their personal cultivation even prior to
the appointed day – Thus, the order by High Court after remand
upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The question as to what is true interpretation
of the relevant provisions of the Act and especially Section 3(3)
of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971
and the other question regarding holding of the land and its
intended use by the respondents stand already decided by this
Court in the earlier round of litigation. The State cannot, therefore,
be allowed to raise the same plea again in the second round of
litigation after remand. This Court in explained the object and
purpose of Section 3(3) of the Act and then holding that such
685
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 685
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
provision has to be construed liberally examined the facts of this
very case and set aside the order of the High Court in the earlier
round of litigation. The remand of the case to the High Court was
to examine the issue in the light of interpretation made by this
Court. [Para 22]  [693-E-G]
1.2 The tribunal recorded findings of fact as set out while
allowing the respondents’ application filed u/s. 8 and the same
were not interfered with by the High Court. All the findings are
otherwise found to be based on documentary evidence filed by
the respondents and the same were properly appreciated by the
tribunal keeping in view the requirements of sub-section (3) of
Section 3, that the title was derived by the respondents in relation
to the land in question prior to the appointed day and the land
was found in actual use by the respondents for their personal
cultivation even prior to the appointed day. [Paras 23-24]  [693-
G-H; 694-A-B]
1.3 In the light of these two findings recorded by the Tribunal
on facts and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order
after remand, which were not found perverse or against any
evidence or illegal in any way, there is no ground to interfere in
the impugned order. [Para 25]  [694-C]S
Joseph & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2007) 10
SCC 414 : [2007] 6 SCR 347 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 6 SCR 347
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9912
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2007 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in MFA No. 137 of 1989.
K. N. Balgopal,  Sr. Adv.,  G.  Prakash,  Jishnu M.  L., Ms.
Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Mukundan, Jogy Scaria and
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advs., for the appellants.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Vishnu P. and P. K. Manohar, Advs., for the
respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
687
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against
the final judgment and order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No.137 of 1989 whereby the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.
2. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the
appeal, it is necessary to set out few facts hereinbelow.
3. The appellant is the State of Kerala. It was the appellant before
the High Court whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in
the appeal out of which this civil appeal arises.
4. The respondents
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.