The definition of private forests and the evidentiary standards for cultivation under land reform legislation are critical in assessing property vesting.

1. The applicant was before the Forest Tribunal seeking exemption from vesting under the Vesting Act . The applicant was concerned with two extents of property lying contiguously on which the applicant had been issued with purchase certificate under Kerala Land Reforms Act . The concerned property was situated in two survey numbers; 59 cents in 93/4 and 3.09 acres in 93/5 of Muttikulangara village, Puduppariyaram amsom, Palakkad district. The applicant claimed that he is in actual possession of the scheduled property which he took on lease from one Krishnankutty who had janmam on the property. The applicant was in possession and cultivating the property for the last 45 years, when on 28.12.1995 the forest officials obstructed the cultivation alleging vesting under Kerala Private Forests(Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Vesting Act '). It was claimed that the scheduled land is a dry land not part of the area covered under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act , 1949 (for short 'the MPPF Act'). The land situates without any boundaries abutting a forest and there are no trees existing in the property. It was also argued that on the three sides of the property there are residential houses. The land was asserted to be brought under cultivation prior to 10.05.1971 and liable to be excluded from the definition of private forest and if not so excluded entitled to exemption based on the cultivation as on the appointed day.

2. The respondent filed a counter affidavit alleging that the character and nature of the property shows it to be a forest land never brought under cultivation at any point of time. The respondent also denied the title and possession of the property. It was admitted that the areas were demarcated and surveyed in 1997 and the property had been notified then. It was also asserted that the property was a private forest as defined under the Vesting Act .

3. PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the applicant, who marked Exts.A1 to A12. The Forest Range Officer is examined as RW1, who marked Exts.B1 to B4 notifications. The Court marked Ext.C1 and C2 being the commission report & plan filed in the case.

4. The Tribunal, found that PW1 the applicant's son could not have spoken of the lease obtained by his father, especially since he was aged 44 years and he would have had no personal knowledge of the lease which was obtained by his father about 45 years back. Ext. A12 partition deed by which the lessor of the father of the applicant had obtained the lease was looked into to find that there is nothing to show that the property belongs to Kallampatta Krishnankutty, the lessor of the property as seen from the application. However, it was noticed that one Krishnan is the owner of the property who as on the date of Ext.A12 was aged 21 years; who would have been only aged 12 years as on the year of lease, 1951; which makes the story of lease unbelievable. The purchase certificate was held to be not binding on the Custodian. The land revenue receipts did not clearly show the extent of the lands and admittedly the applicant had other properties, the details of which were not produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal assumed that the tax receipts produced were with respect to other properties. PW2 the alleged neighbour was disbelieved since his evidence was tutored and though he spoke of cultivation in the scheduled property; there were no signs of that seen by the Commissioner. Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner and Ext.C2 were looked into to find that the property comprised in 93/5A is a vested forest land which encloses the scheduled land, while the property in 93/4B is not claimed to be a private forest with refer