J. Chelameswar, C.J.

1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16.10.2009. As a matter of fact three writ petitions were disposed of by the abovementioned judgment. These two appeals arise out of W.P.(C).No.7105 of 2007 and W.P.(C).No.26694 of 2008 respectively. The facts leading to the present litigation are as follows.

2. The sole respondent herein in each of the appeals is the writ petitioner in the abovementioned two writ petitions. Her father, it appears, initially held a vast extent of land measuring approximately 2776.76 Acres in various survey numbers in Naduvil Village of Kannur District. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent's father under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. It appears that, by the proceedings dated 22.11.1973 the competent authority under the abovementioned Act, i.e., the Taluk Land Board, ordered that the father of the respondent shall surrender an extent of 1232.26 Acres as being excess land held by him under the provisions of the abovementioned Act.

3. The State of Kerala made an enactment known as "Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971", hereinafter referred to as "the Private Forests Act". Under Section 3* of the said Act, it is declared that "with effect on and from the appointed day" [i.e., 10.05.1971], the ownership and possession of all the private forests "stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances". The expression "private forest" is defined under the said Act. We shall examine it a little later in the judgment.

4. A notification contemplated under Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 read with Section 6 of the Act was given declaring that an extent of 348 Acres in RS No.292/1A in Naduvil village, Thaliparamba Taluk, Kannur District belonging to the father of the respondent herein to be private forest and, consequentially, possession and ownership was vested in the Government under Section 3(1) of the said Act. The respondent's father filed O.A. No.90/79 before the Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the said Act challenging the legality of the said notification. The case of the applicant was that the said notified property is a cardamom plantation and, therefore, could not have been declared as a private forest under the Private Forests Act. The said O.A. was dismissed initially on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was carried to this Court under Section 8 A of the said Act. The appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. However, by an order dated 22.03.90, the Tribunal once again dismissed the application recording a finding that the land in dispute was forest land within the meaning of the Private Forests Act, 1971. The abovementioned decision of the Tribunal was once again challenged before this Court in M.F.A.No.658/90. The appeal was once again allowed with certain directions to the Tribunal. In obedience to the directions of this Court, the Tribunal once again examined the matter and came to a conclusion that an extent of 100.05 acres was an area covered by cardamom plantation which existed for a period of 25 years prior to the date of the visit of a Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal for ascertaining the nature of the land in dispute. In terms of the said finding, a final order came to be passed by the Tribunal recording a finding that an extent of 100.05 Acres of land demarcated as plots A, B and C by the sketch prepared by the above-mentioned Commissioner to be a cardamom plantation and, therefore, excluded from the definition of the expression "private forest" under the said Act. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that a further extent of 9.95 acres is also required to be excluded from the operation of the Private Forests Act on the ground that such a piece of land is required to be exempted from the relevant p