IMPORTANT POINTS
1. High Court has inherent power to review its judgment passed under Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment Act) de hors power of review u/s 8C(2).
2. If any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court s power in that regard is plenary.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Two questions are mooted in this appeal filed by special leave. First is whether the power to review a decision rendered under Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") could have been exercised in the absence of any of the conditions specified in Section 8C of the Act. The second question-which has sprouted as ancillary to the first question-is whether the High Court has (de hors the said provision) power to review its own decision rendered in appeal filed under the Act. If both questions are answered in the negative the appellant can succeed in getting the impugned order (of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala) annulled in his favour. Otherwise the impugned order will remain undisturbed.

2. The facts which led to the said order are the following:

As per Section 3(1) of the Act, ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala stood transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the "appointed day". The statute itself has fixed 10.5.1971 as the said appointed day. However, two exceptions were provided as per sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act which are extracted below:

"(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of land comprised in private forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964 or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section 1 shall apply in respect of so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with other lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under Section 82 of the said Act."

3. Forest Tribunals were constituted for adjudicating the disputes regarding applicability of the said exceptions. Appellant raised a claim in respect of 20 acres of land as not vested in the Government. As the claim was disputed appellant filed a petition before the Forest Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. He mainly contended before the Forest Tribunal that the said area fell within sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, but the Forest Tribunal repelled his claim and dismissed his petition. Thereupon he filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala under Section 8A of the Act.

4. By judgment dated 13.1.1982 a Division Bench of the High Court concurred with the view of the Forest Tribunal that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption under sub-section (3) Section 3 of the Act. However, the Division Bench proceeded to

High Court without the authority in writing of the Government or due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars before the High Court or that an appeal against such order could not be filed before the Supreme Court by reason of the delay in applying for and obtaining a certified copy of such order, may, during the period beginning with the commencement of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Amendment Act, 1986 and ending on the 31st day of March 1987, make an application to the High Court for review of such order."

7. A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala v. Subramonian Namboodiri1 has taken the view that a remedy of review under the sub-section is not available merely because the State feels that the decision is wrong on the merits. "Section 8C(2) envisages a review only if the decision of this Court had been made on the basis of a concession made before it without the authority in writing of the Custodian or the Government, or due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars before the Tribunal or that an appeal against such decision could not be file