The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment introducing S.12A to the Kerala Forest Act was found to be valid and within the legislative powers of the State, as it did not encroach on the matter of civil procedure.

T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.

1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions challenge the validity of the amendment made to the Kerala Forest Act by introduction of S.12A to the Act, first by Kerala Ordinance No. 8 of 1980, subsequently replaced by Kerala Forest (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act 5 of 1981). The question arises in these cases in the following manner:

2. Large tracts of land, about 7000 acres of Cherickal lands, were sought to be constituted into a reserve forest by the state of Travancore. Notification was issued for that purpose under the provisions of the Forest Regulations (Travancore) of 1068 M. E. The lands are in the Kottayam and Quilon Districts. These lands have been claimed to be in the Possession and enjoyment of the jenmi family, Neithalloor Koikkal under certain Royal Grants as well as by demises under this jenmi. Contending that the lands were not lands at the disposal of the Government within the meaning of the said expression in the Forest Regulations and as such it was beyond the competence of the State to constitute them as reserve forest under the provisions of the Forest Regulation, corresponding to the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act of 1961, the jenmi and some of the demises preferred claims before the Forest Settlement Officer challenging the legality and validity of the notification and the proposed action of the State. The claims were tried together by the Forest Settlement Officer, Kottayam and by judgment dated 15-11-1969 the officer rejected the claim.

3. The jenmi preferred appeal to the District Court, Quilon as Appeal No. 277 of 1972 under the Kerala Forest Act. The other claimants preferred appeal to the District Court, Kottayam as A. S. No. 4 of 1975. All the appeals were transferred from the District Court of Quilon and Kottayam to the District Court, Ernakulam, where they were renumbered as A. S. No. 159 of 1976 and 179 of 1979. By a common judgment dated 23-6-1980, the District Court, Ernakulam allowed the appeals. It was found by the appellate court that the properties comprised in the notification are not lands at the disposal of the State within the meaning of the Act, and the title of the Jenmi in respect of the lands as claimed by them was upheld. The Royal Grants relied upon by the jenmi were found to be true and genuine by the court. Further it was found that the notification issued by the Government in respect of the lands were without jurisdiction and therefore ultra vires and void. The hearing of the appeal in the District Court was on 18-4-1980. It was posted for judgment to 2-6-1980. The judgment was finally pronounced on 23-6-1980, as stated earlier, allowing the appeals.

4. Under the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and under the provisions of the Forest Regulation which were in force at the time when the claims were preferred, the decision of the District Court, namely the appellate authority, in the appeal was final. The Forest Settlement Officer was enjoined by the Act to carry out the appellate court's order as per S.13 of Act IV of 1962. It alleged that the petitioners herein had made applications for getting certified copies of the judgments from the appellate courts for taking further proceedings for implementation of the order of the appellate court and for terminating the administration by the State of the Jenmi's assets and for getting possession and other consequential reliefs. In short what the petitioners would contend is that as the law then stood no further appeal after the appeal under S.11 was provided by the Kerala Forest Act, 4 of 1962 nor under the Travancore Act 2 of 1068 and what remained was only the implementation of the judgment as per S.15 of the Act. In regard to forests there is Central Act 16 of 1957. There, with regard to matters in dispute appeal is provided under S.17 and 18 of the Act and the decision of the appellate authority is final and binding on the parties. There also there is no provision for second appeal.

5. The