The High Court, as a Court of Record, has inherent powers to correct its own orders, and the power of review under S.8C(2) is limited to specific conditions.

1. Two questions are mooted in this appeal filed by special leave. First is whether the power of review of 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 S.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 appellants 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 lead to the said order are the following:

As per S.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-ss. (2) and (3) of S.3 of the Act which are extracted below:

"(2) Nothing contained in sub-s. (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-s.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 S.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-s. (3) of S.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 S.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-s. (3) S.3 of the Act. However, the Division Bench proceeded to consider whether appellant can have benefit of the exemption provided in S.3(2) thereof. The Division Bench held thus:

"We are not satisfied with the manner in which the claim of the appellant under S.3(2) was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have found that there was sufficient evidence in the case to show that the appellant satisfied the definition of the word 'owner' so far as his claim under S.3(2) was concerned. The Tribunal should have therefore held that the appellant was entitled to the exemption in respect of 12 acres of land claimed under S.3(2) of the Act. We hold that the Tribunal erred in declining the relief to the appellant at least to the extent of the property covered by Ext. P9 under S.3(2) of the Act".

The Act was subsequently amended by incorporating S.8C therein as per which powers were conferred on the Forest Tribunal as well as the High Court to review the orders under certain conditions. The Government and the custodian of vested forests moved an application, in April 1984 before the High Court purporting to be under S.8C(2) of the Act, for review of the earlier judgment of the High Court. On 17.2.1987 the Division Bench of the High Court reviewed the e