High Court Kerala High Court

Bombay Burmah Trading … vs Union Of India on 17 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Bombay Burmah Trading … vs Union Of India on 17 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1784 of 2010()


1. BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF

4. THE CUSTODIAN, VESTED FORESTS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :17/01/2011

 O R D E R
            J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
                        ------------------------------------------
                             W.A. No.1784 of 2010
                        ------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011

                                   JUDGMENT

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

Aggrieved by a judgment dated 14th June, 2010 in W.P.(C)

No.16623 of 2005, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the present

writ appeal.

2. The appellant is a company which owned a teak plantation in

Sy.No.160/21A1A1 of Poothady (now Irulam) Village in South Wayanad

(now Sulthan Bathery) Taluk. The entire area covered by the

plantation owned by the appellant was notified to be a private forest under

the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Aggrieved

by such a declaration, the appellant herein challenged the correctness of

such a notification before the Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the

above mentioned Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in toto holding that

the declaration made under the above mentioned Act is illegal. The State

carried the matter to this Court in statutory appeal under the above

mentioned Act and the appeal was admittedly allowed. The appellant herein

carried the mater in further appeal before the Supreme Court unsuccessfully.

3. W.P.(C) No.16623 of 2005 from out of which the instant

appeal arises was filed by the appellant with the prayers as follows:

W.A.No.1784 of 2010

– 2 –

“i) To hold that the petitioner is entitled to obtain

exemption of 15 Acres of property included in Survey

No.160/21A1A1 of Poothady Village in South Wayanad Taluk.

ii) To direct the respondents 1 & 2 to surrender and

vacate possession of 15 Acres of land comprised in Survey

No.160/21A1A1 of Poothady Village in South Wayanad Taluk.

iii) To award the cost of these proceedings to the

petitioner and;

iv) To grant such other and further relief as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case.”

4. In substance, the appellant claims that an extent of 15

Acres in the above mentioned survey number is required to be excluded

from the purview of the operation of Section 3 of the Kerala Private

Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act on the ground that sub-section

(2) of Section 3 carves out an exception to the rule of vesting contained

under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act.

5. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this

Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petition is barred

by the principle of res judicata and hence this appeal.

6. We are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the

learned Judge that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed though

with a slight modification that the writ petition is required to be dismissed

not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground that it is barred by

W.A.No.1784 of 2010

– 3 –

the principle of constructive res judicata as admittedly the claim that the

appellant is entitled for exclusion of a particular extent of land by virtue

of the operation of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act was not

raised in the first round of litigation when the appellant herein

challenged the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act.

In the circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal. The

writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge

vns