M. Muhammadkutty vs The Forest Tribunal and Others

Narayana Pillai, J.—This is an appeal u/s 8A(1) of the Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 26 of 1971, for short the Act, from an order of the Tribunal refusing to remit to the commissioner his report for furnishing certain additional details about a land or in the alternative for the Tribunal making a local inspection of the land. It arises in a proceeding started on an application filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal u/s 8(1) of the Act claiming the land to be not private forest. In it a commission was issued and the commissioner filed report. It was that report that was sought to be remitted to him.

Section 8A(1) of the Act provides for appeal only from decision of Tribunal. But is every order it passes in the proceeding its decision? The argument here revolves round the words "any decision of the Tribunal" occurring in Section 8A(1).

Application u/s 8(1) is contemplated only when there is a dispute as to whether or not the land concerned is private forest or the private forest is vested in the Government. If the Tribunal decided that matter in favour of the applicant and no appeal was preferred against that decision within the specified time or if an appeal was filed and it was dismissed or if the Tribunal decided the matter against the applicant and in appeal therefrom the appellate court decided the matter in his favour, then u/s 8(3) or 8(4), as the case may be, of the Act, the custodian had to restore possession of such land to the person in possession thereof immediately before the appointed day. The "decision of the Tribunal" mentioned in all those places is its final decision on the application u/s 8(1) of the Act. In that context when Section 8A(1) provides for appeal from "any decision of the Tribunal" it necessarily means any decision of the Tribunal on the application u/s 8(1) of the Act.

No doubt use of the word "any" before the word "decision" shows that every decision is appealable. But that does not mean that every order passed in the proceeding by the Tribunal is appealable. Several orders may have to be passed in a proceeding before the final act of decision. They may have something or other to do with that final act of decision also. But they are only orders leading up to the decision and are not themselves decisions so as to come within the term "any decision". If it was every order that was intended that could have been specifically mentioned in Section 8A(1). That was not done. That also is significant. The word "decision" as used in Section 8A(1) is used in the same sense in which it is used in the preceding Section 8. When so interpreted, as "decision" contemplated by that section should have decided the claim referred to in Section 8(1) the use of the word "any" before the word "decision" cannot enlarge the scope of the word "decision" so to take in it orders passed by the Tribunal prior to the act of decision on the claim made in the application.

A decision presupposes a contest between the parties. The decision of the Tribunal contemplated by Section 8A(1) is that on the dispute made mention of in the preceding Section 8(1) of the Act. Orders passed prior to reaching that decision do not resolve or decide in any manner the dispute raised by the claim. Consequently they are not the decisions contemplated by Section 8A of the Act. That is clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 8 and 8A together. The conclusion, therefore, is that only the decision adjudging the claim made in the application filed u/s 8(1) of the Act is appealable u/s 8A(1) of the Act and not each and every order passed by the Tribunal in the course of that proceeding leading up to that decision.

As the present appeal is not from a decision of the Tribunal disposing of the claim of the Appellant one way or the other this appeal is incompetent. Hence it is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.