1. This review petition is filed by the respondents in the writ petition. As per the judgment sought to be reviewed, the challenge against Exhibit P12
order, refusing the writ petitioner's demand to survey his property comprised in old Survey No.283/1A of Perumpetty Village, was upheld and the 3rd
respondent was directed to consider Exhibit P1 representation with reference to the findings in the judgment in M.S.A.No.1 of 1981 and to pass
orders thereon. The review petition is filed primarily on the ground that, subsequent to the judgment in the writ petition, the Honourable Supreme Court
has, by order dated 3.7.2019 in SLP.No.2291 of 2019, ordered status quo with respect to the findings in MSA.No.1 of 1981. According to the review
petitioners, the said order renders the direction in the judgment otiose and hence the judgment is liable to be reviewed.
2. Heard Sri.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for the review petitioner and Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
3. Sri.Sandesh Raja drew attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment in the writ petition and the direction therein to contend that the judgment is
rendered, based entirely on the judgment in MSA.No.1 of 1981 and the Supreme Court having ordered status quo in the Civil Appeal filed against the
judgment in MSA.No.1 of 1981, the review petition is liable to be allowed.
4. Sri. Millu Dandapani refuted the contention and submitted that the judgment is not based on the findings in MSA.No.1 of 1981 alone, but also based
on other relevant factors. Alternatively, it is contended that, even if reliance has been placed on the decision in MSA.No.1 of 1981, the review, based
on a subsequent order of the Apex Court cannot be entertained. According to the learned counsel, the order of status quo cannot be termed as a new
and important factor which was not within the knowledge of the review petitioners. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of
West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another [(2008) 8 SCC 612] to contend that, even if the decision on a question of law was rendered
based on the findings in a judgment, which finding is subsequently reversed or modified by a superior court, that cannot be a ground for review.
5. The contention of the review petitioner that the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered, based on the judgment in MSA.No.1 of 1981, stands
substantiated by paragraphs 15 and 16 extracted hereunder;
“15. The question as to whether the property covered by Neettu Nos.942 and 948 falls under Ext.P9 notification stands concluded by the
judgment of this Court in M.S.A.No.1 of 1981. Therefore, it is no longer open for any person to contend that the property, over which he or
she had acquired title on the strength of Neettu Nos.942 and 948, does not form part of Ext.P9 notification. The question as to whether the
notified lands are lands at the disposal of the Government has also been considered and answered holding that they are not lands at the
disposal of the Government, in terms of Section 2(g) of the Kerala Forest Act.
16. Even though the petitioner was not a party to M.S.A.No.1 of 1981, the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the said
case will definitely have an impact on the request made by the petitioner to conduct survey of her land. The impact of the findings in the
judgment in M.S.A.No.1 of 1981 not having been available for consideration while issuing Ext.P12, it is only appropriate that the third
respondent re-considers the request made under Ext.P1, in the light of the findings in M.S.A.No.1 of 1981.
In that view of the matter, Ext.P12 is quashed. The third respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 representation, with reference to the
findings in the judgment in M.S.A.No.1 of 1981 and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the official respondents. Final orders on Ext.P1 representation shall be rendered within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.â€
6. The next question is whether the subsequent order of status quo passed in the appeal filed against the judgment in MSA.No.1 of 1981 is relevant
factor necessitating review of the judgment in the writ petition.
7. In State of West Bengal (supra) the Supreme Court elaborately considered the power of review vested with Tribunals and found such power to be
akin to the power under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. The Apex Court also dealt with the divergence of opinion among the High Courts on the
question whether, a subsequent contra judgment by the same or superior court on a point of law can be treated as an error apparent on the face of the
record for the purpose of review of an earlier judgment. After elaborate consideration of the precedents, the court culled out the following principles;
“35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court
under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason†appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified
grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent
on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger
Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available
at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial
order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show
that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced
before the court/tribunal earlier.â€
8. It is no doubt true that the happening of a subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated
by an error apparent, but here the position is different. The judgment has been rendered, based entirely on the decision in MSA.No.1 of 1981. The
consequence of the judgment in MSA.No.1 of 1981 being reversed, is to render the findings and the directions superfluous. It is to be noted that Order
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC provides for review of judgments under the following circumstances;
“1. Application for review of judgment
xx xx
…. from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or
could not be produced by him at th time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason,.....â€
9. The words “for any other sufficient reason†in Order XLVII Order 1 has been held to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, least
analogous to those specified in the rule†(see Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526]). In my considered
opinion, the order of status quo in the Civil Appeal filed against MSA.No.1 of 1981 would fall within the ambit of “any other sufficient reasonâ€.
Being so, I find merit in the review petition.
In the result, the review petition is allowed and consequently, the judgment dated 25.1.2019 in W.P(C).No.8901 of 2016 is recalled.
Post the writ petition for hearing.
