Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65304
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
THE STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
DR.K.G.SURESH – Respondent
RP/564/2019
ADV. SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST), ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.), ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN, ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR, ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN, ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN
Suppression of material facts by a petitioner can lead to dismissal of claims and imposition of costs, emphasizing the necessity for full disclosure in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Review - Writ Petition - Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, Ecologically Fragile Land Act - Key legal provisions on land taxation, failure of disclosure influences judicial decision making.
Fact of the Case:
A review petition was filed challenging a previous judgment that allowed the acceptance of land tax without considering notifications declaring portions of the land as ecologically fragile and vested forest. The petitioner failed to disclose these notifications in the initial writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner had suppressed critical facts regarding land status and notifications, misleading the court into passing an order that would not have been granted had all facts been presented honestly.
Issues: Whether the suppression of facts regarding land status and legal notifications affected the validity of the initial writ petition, and the subsequent implications of this suppression.
Ratio Decidendi: The suppression of material facts in judicial proceedings undermines the integrity of the process and justifies the reviewing court to impose costs and potentially dismiss the original petition.
Final Decision: The review petition is allowed; the previous judgment is recalled; the writ petition is dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of October 2019 This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 30.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.16876 of 2018. It is submitted that the prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept land tax from the petitioner for the property having an extent of 492.13 acres in Aryankavu Village. It is stated in the review petition that out of the 492.13 acres of land, 328.76 acres (133.05 hectares) had been notified as ecologically fragile land by notification dated 25.1.2010 which is produced as Annexure A1. It is stated that by Annexure A2 notification dated 30.01.1986, 20.82 hectares (51.42 acres) out of the 492.13 acres claimed by the petitioner had been notified as vested forest under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It is stated that as against Annexure A1 notification, the petitioner had filed an O.A before the EFL Tribunal. By order dated 20.3.2018, the Tribunal found that the above land is not ecologically fragile land. Against the said order, the State had filed MFA No.133/2018 and the same had been admitted and an interim order of status quo had been passed in the above appeal on 19.6.2019.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner had willfully suppressed the above facts and had filed the writ petition without arraying the forest department or the custodian of Ecologically Fragile Land as party to the writ petition. It is stated that the judgment had been rendered relying on a decision of the Devision Bench inHarrisons Malayalam Ltd. And another v. State of Kerala and another ( 2018 (2) KHC 719 ) directing the acceptance of land tax on the basis of title deeds relied on by the petitioner.
3. A contempt of court case as COC No.698 of 2019 dated 26.6.2019 was filed by the petitioner alleging non compliance with the directions contained in the judgment. Pursuant to the same, an order was passed by the District Collector on 25.6.2019 and land tax had been accepted from the petitioner.
4. Leave was granted to the Forest Department to file this review petition on 24.6.2019. Notice was ordered in the application to condone delay on 26.6.2019 and the delay was condoned on 22.7.2019. Thereafter, the review petition was admitted and stay of operation of the judgment under review was ordered on 23.7.2019. There was no appearance for the respondents and time was granted till 19.8.2019. On that day and later on 26.8.2019 when the review petition was heard, there was no appearance for the respondent.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioners made available a copy of the interim order in I.A No. 2 of 2018 in MFA(Forest) No.133/2018 of a Division Bench of this Court dated 19.6.2019. The interim order directed both sides to maintain status quo as it existed on the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. It was also directed that both sides shall not take any steps to change the entries in the revenue records pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal. It is seen from the order that the order under challenge was the order dated 20.3.2018 in O.A No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Tribunal for EFL cases. Priya Rubber Estate and Plantation Pvt. Ltd., Dr. Suresh and Priya Radhamony were respondents 1 to 3 in the MFA.
6. I find from a perusal of the writ petition that there was no whisper in the pleadings, the notification of a substantial portion of the land as ecologically fragile land in the year 2010 or the pendency of the O.A before the Tribunal. The writ petition had been filed on 23.5.2018. This was after the order passed by the EFL Tribunal. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no pleading as to either the notification or the successful challenge against the same before the Tribunal. The petitioner proceeds on the basis that he has valid title to the property in question.
7. A statement had been filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition wherein it is inter alia cont
