The power of review under S.8B of the Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, 1971 is not restricted to specified grounds and is not analogous to the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C.

Shanmugam, J.

The question that arises for consideration is whether and if so to what extent the provisions of Order XLVII C.P.C. would apply to review petition filed before the Forest Tribunal under S.8B of the Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the Act', or before the High Court under S.8C of the Act. The appellants herein filed an application O.A.No. 851 of 1974, he fore the Forest Tribunal, Palghat, claiming exemption/ exclusion for an extent of 7.22 acres of land situated in Nochipully, Palghat taluk and District, from vesting in the Government under the said Act. The Forest Tribunal passed order dated 28th May, 1977 upholding the claim and allowed that application. The respondents herein filed a review petition, I.A.No. 370 of 1987, under S.8B of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the review petition and set aside the order passed in O.A.No. 851 of 1974 holding that the appellants are not entitled to the claim made by them.

2. As against the order of the Tribunal the appellants filed M.F.A.No. 325 of 1989 contending that the order of the Forest Tribunal allowing the application for review is contrary to law and against the evidence in the case. When the matter came up before the Division Bench one of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants was based on the decision in Stare of Kerala v. Ahmmedkutty Haji & others (1987 (2) KLT 406) wherein the Bench has taken the view that at the stage of consideration of the review petition on merits, the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C, has to be established and if any one of those grounds is not established, review cannot be allowed. The referring Bench was of the opinion that the said decision requires reconsideration.

3. Mr. P.N.K. Achan, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that S.8B of the Act enables the Custodian to apply for review of the decision before the Tribunal, if he is satisfied that such decision has to be reviewed on the following grounds:

a) that the decision was on the basis of concessions made before the Tribunal without the authority in writing of the Custodian or the Government;

b) the decision was made due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars;

c) an appeal against such decision could not be filed by reason Of the delay in applying for and obtaining a certified copy.

The learned counsel for the appellants proceeds to submit that the Tribunal can review the judgment only if these three conditions are satisfied, and Tribunal cannot go beyond these conditions and find out any other defect in the order for the purpose of reviewing its own judgment. applying this principle the order impugned docs not. satisfy any of the conditions to review. According to the learned counsel none of the grounds set out in the application has been made out to warrant the applicability of S.8B of the Act, According to him the Tribunal is wrong in taking note of the data collected long after the date of the disposal of O. A. and it will amount to supplying the data failed to be produced before the Custodian. According to the learned counsel, the findings of the Tribunal that the disputed land is part of a private forest are not based on any evidence. Finally learned counsel submitted mat the applicants have not been given sufficient opportunity to establish their case.

4. Mr. Jose K. Kochupappu, Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that he has raised ground Nos. 3.4 and 5 as the legal points and the remaining grounds to substantiate the stand of the Government in his memorandum of review petition filed under S.8B of the Act. In the prayer the Government has sought for the review of the order, issuance of notice to the respondent and to allow further opportunities to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence both oral and documentary. According to him the original order was passed without the relevant and vital data which goes into the root of the matter