J U D G M E N T

K. Vinod Chandran,J The applicant before the Forest Tribunal impugn the order refusing to grant declaration of exclusion or exemption under the Kerala Private Forests [Vesting and Assignment] Act, 1971 (for brevity 'the Vesting Act'), to 2.50 acres of land in Re.Sy. No.677/1 of Thondarnad Village in Manathavadi Taluk. It was contended before the Tribunal that 3 acres of property was purchased by the applicant by virtue of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds and the payment of tax was evidenced by Exts.A3 and A4. A sketch was produced under Rule 3 of Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 as, Ext.A5, Ext.A6 was the 'adangal abstract' issued by the Village Officer, Ext.A7 was a pattayam issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and Ext.A8 was produced to establish and trace the title; which was a 'marupattom karar' of 1965.

2. The Tribunal found that Ext.A8 has not been proved to be of the property and so was Ext.A7 not proved to be a purchase certificate issued with respect to the property on which exclusion and exemption was alternatively claimed. There was no clarity regarding the title as claimed by the applicant flowing from Ext.A8. The Tribunal though found the aspect of limitation in favour of the applicant raised serious doubts about the identity of the property as asserted by the appellant, to which, title was claimed by the applicant. The commission report was looked into, to find that there was no cultivation either to substantiate the contention under S.2(f)(1)( i) (A) to (D) or the claim of exemption under s. 3(2) & (3) of the Vesting Act. The property was found to be one covered by Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (for brevity, the MPPF Act) and the contention regarding the purchase certificate being conclusive was also rejected.

3. Sri. V.V Surendran, learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant relied on State of Kerala v. Mohammed Basheer [(2019) 4 SCC 260] to argue that the purchase certificate issued under Section 72K is conclusive proof of title and such lands are exempted under the Vesting Act. The decisions in Kunjanam Antony v. State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 221] and State of Kerala v. Popular Estates [(2004) 12 SCC 434] were under Chapter III of the Land Reforms Act while Mohammed Basheer (supra) specifically looked at S.72K of the Land Reforms Act coming under Chapter II. The Purchase Certificate issued under S.72K, according to him, is conclusive proof of the land being not a private forest, and the exemption under S.3(vii) of the Land Reforms Act would not definitely be applicable. It was argued that the definition of private forests under the Land Reforms Act is different and distinct from that under the Vesting Act. The issuance of a Purchase Certificate being statutorily conclusive as per S.72K, there is a presumption that the property is not a private forest. Though the Government is not in an adversary position, they have a right to file an appeal from the order of the Tribunal, as noticed in Mohammed Basheer (supra). The Government has not filed any appeal from the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, which led to the issuance of the purchase certificate. Learned Counsel would add that issuance of purchase certificate in favour of the applicant's father was very much pleaded in the original application and a copy of the same was also produced along with the O.A. But the original could not be produced since it was deposited before a bank. It was argued by the learned Counsel that Ext.A7 though was a copy, if a remand is made, the original will be produced, which is deposited in a bank as against a mortgage. It was also contended that in this case, the applicant has produced the sketch as required under Rule 3 to which some sanctity has to be attached by the Tribunal, especially the same having been provided for in the Tribunal Rules of 1972. On such premise, the appellant/applicant seeks the O.A. to be allowed or in the alternative, to remand the matter for consideration