P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Interference declined by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking for a declaration that the property concerned herein is not a 'vested forest', is the subject-matter of challenge in the appeal.

2. The case of the appellant is that, he had obtained an 'oral lease' of 1 acre of property from the receiver appointed by a Civil Court, which originally belonged to the Nilambur Kovilakom, for cultivating ginger, tapioca, cashew, mango, jack fruit, etc. and that he had effected the cultivation and was enjoying the property as aforesaid. While so, a criminal case came to be registered against the appellant by the Forest Department in the year 1984, leading to CC No. 413 of 1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri. It is stated that the proceedings ended in acquittal. Subsequently, the Forest Department attempted to interfere with the possession and peaceful enjoyment of the property in the year 1990, by putting up some cairns. Later, another case came to be registered against the appellant under Section 27(1)(f) and Section 62(d) of Forest Act in the year 1992. This also ended up in acquittal. In due course, the appellant was issued a purchase certificate by the Land Tribunal in the year 1975 and he was enjoying the properties accordingly.

3. The appellant, later filed OA before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad seeking for a declaration as mentioned already. The said OA was dismissed by the Tribunal, holding that it was barred by limitation. This was sought to be challenged by filing O.P.No. 11396 of 1991. During the course of hearing, it was found by this Court that no proper publication as envisaged under the relevant rules was effected and hence that dismissal of the OA on the ground of limitation was not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was directed to be considered on merits. By that time the Forest Tribunal at Palakkad was abolished and the matter came within the jurisdiction of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. The issue was considered by the said Tribunal, ultimately leading to the verdict dated 13/11/2004 in OA No. 17 of 2003 dismissing the same, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the property was under cultivation of the appellant from date much prior to the appointed day, i.e., 10/05/1971 and that the very issuance of the purchase certificate in favour of the appellant in the year 1975 presupposes the possession from 01/04/1964. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court reported in Ahmmed Kutty v. Mariakutty Umma, 2000 KHC 160 : 2000 (1) KLT 829 : (2000) 2 SCC 417 : AIR 2000 SC 1853, and a Division Bench of this Court in Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and Another, 2002 (1) KLT SN 4. The observations made by the Tribunal are stated as not correct, both on the question of fact and on the question of law.

6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the idea and understanding of the appellant is not correct and that issuance of the purchase certificate cannot be a proof as to the possession of the property or the personal cultivation allegedly being effected as on the appointed date, nor is it binding on the respondents. Reliance is sought to be placed on two judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court reported in Ahammed v. State of Kerala, 1988 KHC 615 : 1988 (2) KLT 967 : 1988 (2) KLJ 756 and State of Kerala v. Alexander, 1993 KHC 168 : 1993 (1) KLT SN 4 : ILR 1993 (1) Ker. 731. The learned Government Pleader also points out that legal question came to be subsequently considered by the Supreme Court as well, with regard to the binding nature of the orders passed by the Taluk Land Board and it was held that such orders could only be part