SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO INTERVENE WHEN HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TAKES A PLAUSIBLE VIEW

The Hon’ble #SupremeCourt of India in the case of State of Kerala and Another vs M/S Popular Estates (Now Dissolved) and another (Civil Appeal No. 903/2011) vide its Judgment dated 29-10-2021 held that power under #Article136 of the #Constitution of India cannot be exercised when the view taken by the High Court is merited with reasons.

In this case, Popular Estates (the “Respondent”) became the owners of 1534.40 acres of land upon a partition of a registered Firm’s assets, namely M/s Popular Automobiles. Meanwhile, the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (the “Vesting Act”) came into force with effect from 10-05-1971. Under Section 3 of the Vesting Act, all private forests were vested in the State Government.

The Forest Authorities attempted to take possession of large areas of land occupied by the Respondent, alleging that they were private forests and had vested in the State, under the Vesting Act. The Respondent moved two Original Applications before the Forest Tribunal (“Tribunal”) under Section 8 of the Vesting Act claiming a declaration that no part of the estate consisting 1534.40 acres was liable to vest in the State. They claimed that as the land was being cultivated it was exempt under Section 81 of the Vesting Act. The State opposed the Applications. The Tribunal decided the matter and held that prima facie it appears that the areas which were with the Respondent should really be vested as forest land in the State. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the Original Applications of the Respondent.

The Forest Department, State of Kerala (the “Appellant”), issued a Notification no. 4713/1977 notifying 100 hectares of the Respondent’s Estate as private forest, based on survey undertaken by the Forest Department. On 22-07-1987, the Custodian and Conservator of Vested Forests issued a Notification under Section 6 of the Vesting Act demarcating land belonging to the Respondent as “vested forests” under the Vesting Act.

The Respondent filed Original Applications against the Notification no. 4713/1977 before the Tribunal (OA Nos. 166 & 167/1990) and also filed Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the Notification dated 22-07-1987.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications vide Order dated 30.10.1992 and held that in its earlier Order it had only dealt with the status of 100 hectares of the land and, therefore, with regard to rest of the land the State was empowered to issue a fresh Notification. This Order dated 30.10.1992 was challenged in an Appeal before the High Court by the Respondent.

The High Court passed a common Judgment dated 07.04.1994 setting aside the Tribunal Order dated 30.10.1992. and allowing the Appeal and held that an area slightly over 402 acres (i.e., 100 hectares and 155.90 acres) vested in the Appellant and the rest of the land (of a total 1534.40 acres) had to be treated as plantation, and thus, belonged to the Respondent.

The High Court held that the Notification was valid only in respect of the 100 hectares of vested forest. It further held that there was no vesting so far as the rest of the land was concerned. The High Court also directed the Custodian of Vested Forests to demarcate the boundaries of the non-vested area under Section 6 of the Act and restore possession of the remaining extent of the properties to the Respondent.

Being aggrieved, the State of Kerala filed an Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India against the Common Judgment dated 07.04.1994 passed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court vide, its Judgment dated 29-10-2021 analyzed the relevant provisions of law which the High Court took into consideration and observed as follows:

1. The Respondent had submitted that 533 acres was under cardamom cultivation; 120 acres under rubber plantation; 257 acres under coffee plantation and that 155.9 acres was forest land; and 17.5 acres comprised of roads and buildings. The possession of the 100 hectares was uncultivated and therefore falls under the forest lands as per the provisions of the Vesting Act. The Court said that it could not find any error in the impugned Judgment with respect to these facts and circumstances.
2. The title deeds of the predecessor-in-interest of the partners of the Respondent, who had acquired the lands in 1963, show that large areas were shown as cardamon plantation. The Respondent had filed agricultural income returns and even in 1970, it was producing coffee, rubber and cardamom. All these materials, in the opinion of the Apex Court, support the conclusions of the High Court, which are based on plausible and not an unreasonable inference of the overall analysis of the material on record.
3. The Court relied on the case of Pritam Singh v. The State (1950 SCR 453) and observed that “where two plausible views on the conclusions that can be drawn from facts on the record exist, this court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of the High Court.”
4. The Court further referred to the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai [(2004) 3 SCC 214] wherein it was held that This overriding and exceptional power has been vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown to exist.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court held that the High Court Judgment dated 07.04.1994 was correct and in accordance with the interpretation of statutory provisions and as per the material on record. Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court findings and held that there was nothing illegal and wrong in the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the High Court.

Lakshmi Vishwakarma

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Edited by Sushila Ram

Chief Consultant and Editor

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services