Koshy, J.

1. Theonly question referred to the Full Bench in this case is as follows:

“Whether assignee of the land after transfer can get the benefit of sections 3 (2) or 3 (3) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. 1971, if his predecessor-in-interest had any right on the appointed day.”

The matter was referred to the Full Bench in view of the observations of the Division Bench in Koya

v. State of Kerala (1987 (1) KLT 830). In the above decision it was held as follows:

“… The owner as defined under the Act does not include an assignee or transferee. As on the appointed day the applicant did not have any right over the property he could not have claimed exemption under S.3 (2) of the Act. The person who is entitled to file a petition claiming benefit under

S.3 (2) or 3 (3) is the person who had right over the property. At the time when the property had vested in the State, the applicant did not have any right.”

The court further observed as follows:

“… As the property, being a private forest, had already vested in the state the person who had right over the property on the appointed day alone could have claimed exemption under S.3 (2) or 3 (3) of the Act. Such a right is not conferred on the assignee under eth Act. The assignment after the property had vested in State ahs no validity, as S.3 (1) clearly stipulates that the right, title and interest of the owner shall stand extinguished. It is only the owner who is given the right to claim exemption under S.3 (2) or 3 (3). As the applicant did not have any right as he was not the owner of the property at the time when it vested in the State, he cannot have any locus standi to file the petition on the ground that he obtained assignment from the person who had right over it.”

According to the Division Bench which referred the matter to the Full Bench, there is substance in the following argument of the counsel for the appellant:

“… If the owner of the land, on the appointed day, is entitled to the benefit of sections 3 (2) or 3 (3) of the act, his assignees will get some right as they are getting into the shoes of the assignor. Such assignees will get a right within the subsequently transfer.”

2. A close reading of the Koya’s case (supra) shows that the above decision only says that if the land is vested in the Government being private forest on the appointed day and that the then owner cannot claim any exception, his assignee has no locus standi to claim exemption as land is already vested in the Government and the owner on the appointed day has no title to transfer the land.

3. Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (in short ‘the Act’) reads as follows”

“3. Private forests to vest in Government:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, But, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall stand extinguished.

.(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extend of land comprised in private forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto.

.(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid registered documents of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with other lands held, by him to which chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent