Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, C. Jayachandran, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNAN – Respondent
Review Petition No.1118 of 2023 | M.F.A (Forest) No.91 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan
For the Respondents: Adv Shri.M.C.John
Review petitions cannot re-agitate settled issues or function as appeals without new evidence.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment addresses the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, particularly Section 8 regarding property claims. Facts: The petitioner contested the rejection of his application under the Vesting Act, claiming rightful ownership by virtue of his father’s prior holding and cultivation. Findings: The court found insufficient evidence of valid property holding and cultivation, affirming the lower court's decision.
Issues: The court examined if the review petition presented new evidence warranting review.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment reiterates principles preventing review petitions from becoming disguised appeals, confirming that no substantial new evidence was offered.
Result: The review petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review involves examining previous claims under the vesting act. (Para 1) |
| 2. review petitions must not re-argue settled issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
C.Jayachandran, J.
The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.F.A (Forest) No.91 of 2015, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 21.03.2023. As per the judgment, the M.F.A was allowed, setting aside the common Order of the Forest Tribunal. Consequently, the application filed before the Tribunal under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Vesting Act’), was also rejected. The Division Bench found that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s father Narayanan was holding the property as on the appointed day validly, with a rightful claim to do so. It was further found that the paddy cultivation claimed in the subject property was not proved to have continued till the appointed day under the Vesting Act. For these and other reasons narrated in the judgment, the Tribunal’s Order was set aside and the application under of the Vesting Act was rejected.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) appearing for the respondents, we notice that there is no error apparent on the face of record and the review is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the issues already concluded by the Division Bench. All the three grounds canvassed in the review petition were raised at the time of appeal and specifically dealt with, in the judgment of the Division Bench.
3. It is settled law that a review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise and it is impermissible in law to re-agitate the issues, which are already concluded by the judgment, sought to be reviewed [See in this regard Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer and another (2023 SCC Online SC 1406)]. To fall within the ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, we hardly find the discovery of any new or important material or evidence, which the review petitioner could not produce before the Division Bench, despite exercise of due diligence. Nor do we find any error apparent on the face of record. Needless to say that, no other sufficient reason exists to entertain the review of the judgment, which considered all factual and legal aspects.
We find no ground to entertain the instant review petition and the same will stand dismissed.
