Radhakrishnan, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the Applicants in O.A.173/77, 176/77, 177/77 and 180/77 of Forest Tribunal, Palghat, against the common order dated 14-6-1988 by which all the above mentioned applications were dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the application scheduled properties were private forest coming under the Vesting Act and that the applicans were not entitled to get the benefit of exemption under Sec. 3(2) or 3(3) of the Act. The order was passed after entertaining the review petitions filed by the Custodian of the Forest and the State of Kerala.

2. The State of Kerala and Custodian of Vested Forests filed I.A.263/87, 282/87, 253/87 and 285/87 respectively under Sec. 8B of the Vesting Act so as to review the earlier decision rendered by the Tribunal on 31st May 1978. Review petitions were entertained by the Tribunal. The Custodian had sought for the issuance of a commission since there was failure on the part of the State to produce some relevant data and particulars earlier. The commission was taken out. Commissioner submitted his report dated 16-10-1987. On the side of the applicants Ext. A3 document was produced. Maintainability of the review petitions was raised by the applicants before the Tribunal. Tribunal held that the petitions for review were maintainable and the matter was examined on merits. Placing reliance on the documents produced earlier and after entertaining the review petitions including the commission report Tribunal came to the conclusion that it had earlier wrongly cast the burden on the State to prove that the properties were not under cultivation prior to the appointed day. Tribunal held after having found that the application schedule properties formed part of Urulankunnu Malavaram governed by the MPPF Act it was the duty of the applicants to prove that the schedule properties were cultivated prior to the appointed day in order to claim exemption from Vesting Act. Placing reliance on the commission report and other evidence Tribunal took the view that the properties were not under cultivation prior to the appointed day. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence Tribunal also concluded that the applicants could not establish that they had title to the application schedule properties. Tribunal therefore concluded that they were not entitled to get relief either under Sec.3 (2) or 3(3) of the Act. Evidently applicants were not claiming relief under Sec.3(3) of the Act since the claim was not based on any registered document. The Applicants are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal have preferred this appeal.

3. Senior counsel appearing for the appellants Sri.P.N.K.Achan submitted Tribunal has committed a grave error in entertaining review petitions under Sec. 8B of the Act. Counsel submitted grounds available under Sec. 8B of the Act were not urged or established by the custodian and State so as to maintain the review positions. Counsel submitted reliance placed on the commission report so as to hold that the properties were not under cultivation prior to the appointed day cannot be sustained. Counsel submitted the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in placing reliance on the commission report obtained subsequent to the entertaining of the review petitions. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahim & others v. Custodian of Vested Forests, 2000(2) KLJ 794. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Bagwathi Tea Estates Ltd. v. Government of India (1995 (1) KLT 612).

4. Counsel appearing for the custodian Sri. Ramaprasad Unni submitted Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in entertaining the review petitioners and to decide the mater on merits. Counsel submitted that the tribunal in its earlier order dated 31-5-1978 had committed an error by wrongly placing the burden on the state to prove the negative. Counsel also submitted earlier all the applications were allowed by