Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order in O.A. No. 107/90 of Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. Application was preferred under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 for declaration that the land in question is not private forest vested in the Government. Exemption was also sought for under Section 3(2) of the Act.

2. Applicant submitted that the property in question was taken on oral lease by her husband in the year 1963 from Chembra Peak Company and was brought under seasonal cultivation like ginger, tapioca, plantation etc. prior to the appointed date. In the year 1978 husband had assigned the land to her as per document No. 3918/78 and the property was under continued cultivation. She had also obtained Pattayam from the Land Tribunal, Kalpetta in S.M.C. No.114/80. Registration from the Rubber Board was also obtained in 1985. When forest official obstructed she approached the Forest Tribunal for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. Application was resisted by the Department. Plea of oral lease was rejected. Document executed between the husband and the applicant according to the department is a sham document and reliance placed on the purchase certificate was resisted. It was stated that the property formed part of a vested forest extending to 188 hectares which previously belonged to Chembra Peak Estate. Property was surveyed and demarcated and was included as item No.73 and notified as per D. 5272/77 dated 8-7-1977 by the custodian of vested forests. Further it was stated that the property was never under cultivation and no cultivation was effected prior to 10-5-1971.

4. The Forest Tribunal after examining the documentary and oral evidence rejected the application holding that she had not established the claim. The application was also submitted out of time. On merits also it was found that the applicant had not established the claim for exemption. With regard to claim raised on the purchase certificate the Forest Tribunal held as follows:

"Our High Court has time and again held that a certificate of purchase issued under Section 72K of the K.L.R. Act without impleading the Forest Department is not valid and binding on the respondents in a petition filed under Section 8 of Act 26/71.

5. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the applicant as well as learned Government Pleader. Counsel submitted the Forest Tribunal had committed an error in holding the application preferred by her was out of time. Counsel submitted since no notification was issued under the Act the applicant could file this application either within 60 days from 6-8-81 or from 60 days from the date of notification. Counsel submitted application was well within time and should not have been rejected in limine. Counsel also submitted that appellant had got valid title over the property in question. Reference was also made to the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal which according to the counsel is conclusive and the State and the Forest Department is bound by the orders issued by the Land Tribunal. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in MFA. 160/91 reported in 2002 (1) KLT short Note 4 - Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala .

6. Learned Government pleader could not establish that notification was actually published. Since no gazette notification was produced we are inclined to take the view that the application preferred by her is maintainable and filed within time. Evidently the applicant is tracing her title on oral lease taken by her husband from the Chembra Peak Company in the year 1963. Further also refers to A1 dated 19-12-1978 executed by her husband in her favour. Applicant never got herself examined, instead her husband was examined as PW1. We find ourselves to place reliance on any oral lease set up by the husband as well as document executed between the husband and wife. Applicant could not produce any valid title deed in respect of the property in questi