Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2006 (8) TMI 611 - SC - Indian LawsApplication filled before the Forest Tribunal u/s 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971 ( the Act ) - seeking a declaration that the application scheduled property was not a private forest liable to be vested in the Government - claimed exemption u/s 3(2) - High Court exercise its jurisdiction invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Whether the view of the Forest Tribunal that it could not review the order in exercise of power u/s 8B of the Act notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal from its decision at the stage of admission need not be considered at this stage - HELD THTA - It was not a case of the appellant merely putting forward a false claim or obtaining a judgment based on perjured evidence. This was a case where on a fundamental fact of entitlement to relief he had deliberately misled the Court by suppressing vital information and putting forward a false claim false to his knowledge and a claim which he knew had no basis either in fact or on law. It is therefore clear that the order of the Forest Tribunal was procured by the appellant by playing a fraud and the said order is vitiated by fraud. The fact that the High Court on the earlier occasion declined to interfere either on the ground of delay in approaching it or on the ground that a Second Review was not maintainable cannot deter a Court moved in that behalf from declaring the earlier order as vitiated by fraud. The High Court as a court of record has exercised its jurisdiction to set at naught the order of the Forest Tribunal thus procured by the appellant by finding that the same is vitiated by fraud. There cannot be any doubt that the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has the power to undo a decision that has been obtained by playing a fraud on the court. The appellant has invoked our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. When we find in agreement with the High Court that the order secured by him is vitiated by fraud it is obvious that this Court should decline to come to his aid by refusing the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The plea that the second review was not maintainable that the Division Bench could not have ignored the earlier orders of the High Court dismissing the appeal at the stage of admission and the dismissing of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the first review are all of no avail to the appellant. In this case the Forest Tribunal had also been moved by way of review and that tribunal refused to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 8B of the Act and nothing stands in the way of the High Court setting aside that order on a finding that the original order from the Forest Tribunal was secured by playing a fraud on the Tribunal. Equally nothing stood in the way of the High Court reviewing the judgment in O.P. in which a mandamus was issued by the High Court to restore possession of the application schedule property to the appellant. Similarly nothing stood in the way of the High Court in allowing O.P. filed by a body of citizens challenging the restoration of 20 acres of virgin forest to the appellant in presumed enforcement of the order in O.A. and passing the necessary order nullifying the original order. The fact that the High Court has chosen to review the earlier order on the petition for condonation of delay in filing the first review petition and then to exercise the power of review cannot be of any moment in the light of the what we have stated. In any event as we have indicated this is a fit case where we should clearly decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to come to the aid of the appellant to secure to him the fruits of the fraud practiced by him on the Forest Tribunal and the High Court. Thus we find no merit in the argument that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Forest Tribunal at this distance of time. We thus confirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss these appeals with costs. We hope that this judgment will act as an eye opener to the Forest Tribunals and the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction in dealing with claims (obviously now they are belated claims) for exemption or exclusion u/s 8 of the Act. It behoves the Forest Tribunals and the appellate court to carefully scrutinise the case of title and possession put forward by claimants as also the identities of the lands sought to be claimed while entertaining applications u/s 8 of the Act.
|