The judgment emphasized the limitations on the power of review and the grounds for review under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Amendment Act, 1986, and the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. This review petition was filed on 5-1-1984 by the State of Kerala and the Conservator of Forests and Custodian of Vested Forests, Government of Kerala, who were the respondents in MFA No. 149 of 1980, under 0.47 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.8C(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Ordinance No. 39 of 1983. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of MFA 149 of 1980 by judgment dated 4-3-1982. Subsequently the above said Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor of Kerala amending the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. By that Ordinance new S.5B, 8C and 8D were inserted after S.8A of the Vesting Act. Since a Bill to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the legislature could not be introduced and passed by the Legislative Assembly of Kerala, fresh ordinances were being promulgated from time to time. Finally the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Amendment Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) was passed. Under S.1(2) of that Act the said Amendment Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th of November, 1983, when Ordinance No. 39 of 1983 was published in the Gazette. Under S.8B of the Amendment Act, the Custodian is given the power to apply for review of decisions of Forest Tribunals. Under S.8C the Government is empowered to file appeal or application for review in certain cases. S.81) provides for stay of decisions and orders liable to be reviewed or appealed against. Under S.3 of the Amendment Act, any application for review filed under S.8B or 8C before the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been validly filed. S.8C(2) of the Amendment Act is the provision of law applicable to this petition. It is as follows:

"8C. Power of Government to file appeal or application for review in certain cases:

(1) Omitted.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the Government, if they are satisfied that any order of the High Court in an appeal under S.8A (including an order against which an appeal to the Supreme Court has not been admitted by that Court) has been passed on the basis of concessions made before the 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 off the 31st day of March 1987, make an application to the High Court for review of such order.

(3) Omitted

(4) Omitted

(5) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), or an application under subsection (2), or sub-section (3), the High Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to be heard either in person or by representative, pass such orders thereon as it may think fit."

2. In the review petition, which is in the prescribed form, apart from giving the required details, the petitioners have given the grounds for review in Para.10.One of the main grounds relied on by the petitioner is that the Additional Advocate General submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal that the order of the Forest Tribunal could be confirmed with two safeguards specified in Para.3 of the judgment and that amounts to a concession without authority from the petitioners. The petitioners also have raised the co