The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Forest Tribunal and the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971.

An application filed under Ss.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971 (for short 'the Vesting Act') was allowed by a Forest Tribunal holding that the land involved therein is not a private forest. This appeal by the State of Kerala and Custodian of vested forests is in challenge of the said order.

2. The property involved in the case has an extent of about 3 acres and is lying in Survey No. 1206 of Thiruvallamala Village in Thalappally Taluk (Trichur District). Respondent advanced a case that she was cultivating the land for a long time and that on 6-10-1981 some forest officials resisted the workmen of the respondent who were carrying out agricultural operations in the property. Such resistence was made under the pretext that the land was private forest which vested with the Government. Respondent filed the application for a declaration that it is not a private forest, nor has any notification been issued in respect of the same.

3. According to the government, the disputed land is covered by a notification issued under Rule 2-A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Vestidng rules') and the said land has vested with the Government under the provisions of the Vesting Act.

4. Government produced Ext. B1 notification dated 4-3-1980 before the Forest Tribunal and claimed that the disputed land was covered by the said notification. Forest Tribunal did not accept the said contention of the Government and held that the disputed land is not covered by Ext. B1 notification. Yet the Forest Tribunal proceeded to consider the claim on merits and granted the reliefs prayed for in the application. It also found that the application is not hit by the period of limitation.

5. Learned Government Pleader contended that the Forest Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction and that the finding regarding limitation is totally devoid of merits. It was further contended that the land in dispute would squarely fall within the ambit of Ext. B1 notification.

6. In appreciating the above contention a reference to the relevant provisions of the Vesting Act is necessary. S.3 of the Vesting Act declares that with effect from the "appointed day" all private forests shall stand transferred to and vested in the Government. "Appointed day" is 10-5-1971. S.6 conferred a duty on the custodian of vested forest to cause the boundaries of such vested forests to be demarcated as soon as the appointed day is fixed. Rule 2-A of the Vesting rules has directed the publication of a notification in certain offices specifying the details of the private forests so vested, the boundaries of which have been demarcated with reference to survey numbers and sub division numbers. Such notification should be published immediately after effecting the demarcation.

7. In this case Government adopted the stand, as mentioned above, that the land was demarcated immediately prior to Ext. B1 notification and hence the notification contained the said land also. As the definite stand of the respondent is that the disputed 1 and is not included in the notification, it is for consideration whether Forest Tribunal has got any jurisdiction over the disputed land unless this land is covered by notification.

8. For deciding the said question a reference to S.7 of the Vesting Act which deals with Constitution of Tribunals has to be made. The said provision confers power on the Government to constitute Forest Tribunals "for the purposes of this Act". Subsection (4) reads thus:

"The Tribunal shall decide all matters within its competence and may review any of its decisions in the event of there being a mistake on the face of the record or correct any arithmetical or clerical error therein"

Sub-section (4A) declares that the decision of the Forest Tribunal "on any matter within its jurisdiction" shall be final and conclusive. A reading of these subsections makes it clear that Forest Tribunal has jurisdiction only to decide matter