9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 959 - SC - Indian LawsWhether an appeal under section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act 1961 against an appellate order under section 11 of the said Act would lie only if it involves a substantial question of law? Whether the Memorandum of appeal shall have to state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and whether the High Court is bound to formulate the substantial question/s of law while admitting the appeal or before posting the appeal for hearing?
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an appeal under section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 against an appellate order under section 11 of the said Act, would lie only if it involves a substantial question of law. 2. Whether the Memorandum of appeal must state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and whether the High Court is bound to formulate the substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of Appeal under Section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961: The primary issue is whether an appeal under section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, against an appellate order under section 11, would lie only if it involves a substantial question of law. The appellant contended that such an appeal is akin to a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which is restricted to substantial questions of law. However, the High Court rejected this contention, holding that section 12A does not provide for a "second appeal" but rather an appeal against an appellate order, without limiting it to substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court analyzed the hierarchical structure of appeals under the Act, noting that: - Claims to land proposed to be included in the reserved forest are determined by the Forest Settlement Officer. - Appeals against the Forest Settlement Officer's decisions lie with the District Court. - Further appeals against the District Court's orders can be filed with the High Court under section 12A. The Court emphasized that section 12A does not use the term "second appeal" and does not incorporate the limitations of section 100 of the CPC. The Court cited various precedents and principles, concluding that the scope of an appeal under section 12A includes both questions of fact and law, unlike the restricted scope of a second appeal under section 100 of the CPC. 2. Requirement for Formulating Substantial Questions of Law: The second issue is whether the Memorandum of appeal must state the substantial question of law involved and whether the High Court is bound to formulate these questions before hearing the appeal. The appellant argued that the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law before proceeding with the appeal, similar to the procedure under section 100 of the CPC. The Supreme Court juxtaposed section 12A of the Act with section 100 of the CPC to ascertain the scope of section 12A. It noted significant differences: - Section 100 of the CPC specifically limits second appeals to substantial questions of law, whereas section 12A of the Act does not impose such a limitation. - The form of the Memorandum of Appeal under section 12A, as prescribed by the Kerala Forest (Appeal to the High Court) Rules 1981, does not require stating any questions of law. The Court concluded that section 12A is a self-contained provision that does not incorporate the limitations of section 100 of the CPC. Therefore, the High Court is not required to formulate substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal. The appeal under section 12A can address both questions of fact and law, and there is no need to restrict it to substantial questions of law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that an appeal under section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, is not limited to substantial questions of law and can encompass both factual and legal issues. Consequently, there is no requirement for the High Court to frame substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having no merit.
|
