The jurisdiction of the Forest Tribunal under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & assignment) Act, 1974 is comprehensive and not restricted by the presence of a notification. The civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain disputes under S.8, even if they pertain to non-notified properties.

B.M. Thulasidas, J.

M.F. A. No. 791 of 1988 is by one of the petitioners against the common order of the Forest Tribunal, Palghat dated 24.2.1988 on two unregistered petitions filed under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & assignment) Act, 1974, (for short the act). M.F.A. No. 740,748 and 1438 of 1996 are against orders passed on O.A. Nos. 122 of 1993,67 of 1995 and 204 of 1990 respectively of the Forest Tribunal Kozhikode, whose common order on O. A. Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of 1993 is under challenge in M.F.A. No. 68 of 1997.

2. Two Division Benches of this Court by separate orders passed on 6.8.1986 and 15.1.1997 noticed a conflict of views as to the scope of S.8 of the Act and about the jurisdiction of the Forest Tribunal and pointed out that the decision in State of Kerala v. Komalavally (1995 (2) KLT 26), whose correctness was challenged, ran counter to Ranga Sesha Hills (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala - (1991 (2) KLT 49) and unreported decisions in M.F. A. Nos. 510 of 1984, 86 and 249 of 1988. These cases are referred to us to settle the controversy.

3. We heard counsel for the appellants and the Government Pleader.

4. By the order challenged in M.F.A. No. 791 of 1988, the Forest Tribunal held upon the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules (Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) (Rules and Vesting & Assignment rules) (for short the rules), that its powers are not as wide as of a Civil Court, that under R.3 of the Tribunal Rules an application under S.8 has to be filed within 60 days from 6.8.1981 or within 60 days from the date of publication of the notification under R.2A of the Private Forests (Vesting & assignment) Rules, which ever is later. Since in those cases it was urged that no notification was published, the Tribunal was of the view that the applications should have been filed within 60 days from 6.8.1981, but were filed only on 15.12.1987 and there fore were held to be time barred. Accordingly the petitions were rejected.

5. By order on O.A. No. 122 of 1993, which is the subject matter in M.F.A. No. 740 of 1996, the applications under S.8 were filed on 8.10.1993 following an alleged interference by the Forest Officials with the enjoyment of the property by the appellants, whose case was that it was not a private forest, had not been notified and vested with the Government on the appointed day. The Tribunal held on the basis of the decision in 1992(2) KLT 26, the dispute that had been raised did not fall within its purview and dismissed the petition. On the same reasoning the other petitions were also dismissed.

6. The Act which comes into force on 23.8.1971, was to provide for the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. It is unnecessary to go into the history of the legislation, which is well known. Private Forests as defined in Act 1 of 1964 were exempted from the ceiling provisions. The State had taken note of the scarcity of lands and density of population, which is very high. Surplus lands which may be available by the implementation of the ceiling provisions were found not sufficient to meet the demand for land for agricultural labourers. It was also felt that to allow a few people to be in ownership and control of these agricultural lands would be against the directive principles of State Policy. It was as part of agrarian reforms in the State that it was felt necessary to take over lands and utilise the same by distribution to agricultural labourers for the promotion of agriculture and for the welfare of the agricultural population in the State. It was observed in V. Venugopala Varma Rajaa v. Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala (1969 KLT 320) that in the absence of exceptional circumstance such as the land being entirely rocky and barren or for other reasons, all forest lands in this State are agricultural lands in the sense that they could be prudently and profita