The ruling clarifies that disputes regarding land classification under forest legislation must be resolved by the designated Tribunal, underscoring the importance of demarcation and prescribed legal procedures.

J U D G M E N T

These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the forest officials interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property claimed by the petitioners and referable to the patta issued by the Land Tribunal, Nilambur.

2. The dispute in these writ petitions is arising out of the context of claim of forest officials under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short, the “Act”). The above Act came into force on 10/05/1971. Thereafter, the vested land was notified and any person aggrieved by the notification, normally, would have to approach the Forest Tribunal in terms of Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 to adjudicate the dispute relating to the claim that the land is not a private forest or that the private forest is not vested in the Government under Section 8 of the Act referred as above. However, the petitioners have rushed to this Court under a peculiar circumstance stating that their remedy has been shut out before the Tribunal on account of the period of limitation. Therefore, this Court shall invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners also have a case that the land in question does not form part of the notification under Section 3 of the Act.

3. However, the case of the Forest Department is that this land is forming part of the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act as well as the notification issued under Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Rules 1974 (for short, the “Assignment Rules”).

4. The petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest have been granted patta issued by the Land Tribunal, Nilambur. The petitioners, therefore, are taking the stand that this is a revenue land. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that even if this land would form part of the Kerala Forest Act, the land is principally cultivated with Cardamom and Cashew and other crops as referred under Section 2(1)(b) of the Act.

5. Normally, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised when there is an efficacious alternative remedy, if such remedy was barred by limitation, that would not justify this Court to invoke its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court has to exercise its power with circumspectly and cautiously. 6. The question of disputed facts emanates from this case as follows:

i. Whether this land is forming part of the notification.

ii. Whether the land in question is liable to be excluded under Section 2(1)(b) of the Act, if the notification covers the land claimed by the petitioners as above.

7. Before proceeding further, I would refer to the provision of limitation as contemplated under the Tribunal Rules. The Tribunal has power to settle a dispute referable under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 clearly indicates that the Tribunal has a power to decide whether any land is a private forest or not. Therefore, even in respect of a land, which is claimed by the forest officials as a private forest, and disputed by the holders of the land stating that it is not a private forest, that question can also be decided by the Tribunal. Thus, both the questions raised by the petitioners will have to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court need not invoke its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. However, a related question of limitation for entertaining the application at the instance of the petitioners would arise. Normally, the question of limitation has to be decided by the Tribunal itself. However, both the parties have addressed at length with pleadings and documents. Therefore, this Court propose to address the question of limitation, as otherwise, the Tribunal is unlikely to even entertain the application which could be laid by the petitioners.

9. Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules provides that an application under Section 8 of the Act shall be presented to the Tribunal within 60 days. This 60 day