Judgment :- VEERASWAMI, 1. These petitions have been clubbed, as they raise common questions and also relate to the same Nilambur Kovilakam Forests in Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District. For disposal of these petitions, it will suffice to notice the facts in W.P. No. 2144 of 1965. The petitioner in that case is a Receiver who came to be appointed as such in the following circumstances. There is O.S. No. 22 of 1961 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode for partition of the forests. There are as many as 112 sharers. Pending the suit, joint Receivers were appointed and, with the leave of that Court, the petitions have been filed. The Nilambur kovilakam owns extensivs forests in the District of Kozhikode in the State of Kerala and Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District, in the State of Tamil Nadu. On June 27, 1963, the Receiver was served with a memorandum of the Special Range Officer, Gudalur, enclosing a notice under S. 3(1) of the Madras Private Forests (Assumption of Management) Act, 1961, which stated that the Gover nment desired to take over the management of the private forests mentioned therein, namely, S. No. 251 in Padathorai Village, Gudalur Taluk, of an extent of 43 acres and 6 cents. Similar notices were issued in respect of other Survey Numbers in the estate. Objections were filed; but, without personal hearing—not that we decide that it is required, the Government eventually intimated that the Assistant Conservator of Forests should be given possession of the forests comprised in S. No. 251. The validity of the notification is in challenge in these petitions. 2. Mr. M.K. Nambiar appearing for some of the petitioners submits: (1) The Madras Private Forests (Assumption of Management) Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Forest Act) is inconsistent with the Land Reforms Act (Act 58 of 1961) as amended by Madras Act 20 of 1972 and is void and unenforceable. The Forest Act cannot fall within Art 31 A of the Constitution and, therefore, is not protected from challenge under Arts. 14, 19 and 31. (3) Even if the Forest Act is held constitutional, for any reason, the order of taking over management of the forest is ultra vires of the Act. 3. On the view we take on the first of these propositions, we consider it unnecessary to consider the rest of them. 14, 19 and 31. (3) Even if the Forest Act is held constitutional, for any reason, the order of taking over management of the forest is ultra vires of the Act. 3. On the view we take on the first of these propositions, we consider it unnecessary to consider the rest of them. It is not in dispute that Madras Act 98 of 1961 as amended would now apply to the Nilambur Kovilakam forests. That Act provides for fixation of ceiling on agricultural land holdings which include the private forests now in question and for certain other matters connected therewith in this state. Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act fix the ceiling area in the case of every family consisting of not more than five members. The ceiling, as the Act stands at the moment, is fixed at 15 standard acres. By reason of S. 7, on and from the date of the commencement of the Act, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in the Act, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. The Act came into force on April 1. 1960, and the amendment extending the scope of the Act to private forests came into force on March 1, 1972 S. 8 provides for furnishing of return and clause (viii) of this section gives the person concerned the choice of retention of whatever land he would suggest within the ceiling area. Then follows the procedure for dealing with the returns and, eventually, by S. 18. acquisition of the surplus land is provided for. After publication of final statement under S. 12 or 14, Government shall, subject to Ss. 16 and 17, publish a notification to the effect that the surplus land is required for a public purpose. On such publication, the land specified in the notification together with the trees, buildings, machinery and plant or apparatus on the land be deemed to have been acquired for a public purpose and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of such publication and all right, title and interest of all persons in such land with effect from the said date be deemed to have been extinguished. This provision read with S. 7 would mean this, that from the date of commencement of the Act the person concerned will not be entitled to own land in excess of the ceiling area. The vesting of the excess in the Government takes place on the notification under S. 18 and it is only then all right, title and interest of such person in the land will stand extinguished. Chapter III of the Act deals with ceiling on future acquisition and restrictions on certain transfers with which we are not concerned. By S. 50, payment of compensation is provided for in respect of the excess lands notified and taken over. The compensation is to be computed according to the rate specified in Sch. III to the Act. The lands taken over are to be surveyed, as required by the provisions of Chapter VII. Cultivating tenants in ceiling area are given certain rights under Chapter VIII. The next chapter provides for certain exemptions. The land in excess over the ceiling area which has been taken over and vested in the Government, is to be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIII. It may, therefore, be seen that the Scheme of the Act is to fix a ceiling and whatever is in excess is to be taken over by Government for the purposes of distribution to the landless and also to pay compensation at the specified rate to the persons who have been deprived of the excess over the ceiling. To put it differently, what the Act does is to acquire an estate and distribute, that is to say, acquisition in the sense of Art. 31(2A) and Art. 31-A(a) of the Constitution. 4. The scope of the Forest Act is entirely different. Its object is to provide for taking over the management of private forests in certain areas the state of Tamil Nadu and it seems to be complementary to the Preservation of Private Forests Act 1949. S. 3 of the Act is a vital provision. It says that, whenever it appears to the Government that it is necessary to take over the management of any private forest in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of it, they may notify to that effect stating that any objections received within the period specified in the notice will be considered. It says that, whenever it appears to the Government that it is necessary to take over the management of any private forest in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of it, they may notify to that effect stating that any objections received within the period specified in the notice will be considered. After following the procedure and consideration of the objections, the Government may again notify declaring that the management of the private forest shall be taken over by the Government from such date and for such period not exceeding ten years, as may be specified in the notification. On and from the date specified in the notification, the management of the private forest shall vest in the Government, so that, the Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf may forthwith enter upon and take possession of the private forest and all accounts, registers, maps plans and documents relating to the private forest which the Government may require for management thereof. The consequences of taking over of management are set out in S. 4 which are far reaching and affect even rights of third parties. For instance, all rights and interests created in or over the private forest by the owner or any person interested in the private forest shall not be enforceable against the Government. The owner or any person interested in the private forests or any person having any claim against the private forest or the forest produce shall not be entitled to the rents and profits accruing therefrom during the period of such management but shall be entitled only to the compensation as provided in S. 7. The private forests shall not be liable to be proceeded against in any manner what-sover in execution of any decree or order of any court other authority. Also any attachment or injunction or order for the appointment of a Receiver in respect of the private forest subsisting on the date of taking over the management shall cease to have effect. No claim of any person in respect of the private forest shall be enforced by Court in execution of a decree or otherwise against the Government or against any person holding the private forest under the Government. No claim of any person in respect of the private forest shall be enforced by Court in execution of a decree or otherwise against the Government or against any person holding the private forest under the Government. Serious objections to the validity of each of these provisions have been urged before us, but, as we said at the outset on the view we are taking on the first of the propositions of Mr. Nambiar, it is not necessary to decide them. The power conferred on the Government by S. 5 comprehends a variety of measure necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing, administering, preserving and managing any private forest taken over under S. 3 and, more specifically, the power relates to cutting and removing trees, selling by auction or otherwise the timber and other forest produce, entering into contracts for cutting and removing trees, carrying on cultivation, improving the private forest by planting or otherwise and preventing trespasses and unauthorised removal of any forest produce in the private forest or the commission of any act of waste in the private forest. Then, we have S. 6 relating to release from management of private forests. The notification under S. 3 by which a private forest it taken over, will have to fix a period during which the management of the private forest would vest in the Government. On expiry of that period or even earlier if Government consider that it is no longer necessary to continue in management of the private forest, Government shall release forest from the management and restore the same in as good a condition as it was when possession was taken over, subject, of course, to the changes caused in the ordinary course of management or husbandry and by irressistible force. Before releasing Government has the authority to decide the person to whom the private forest should be banded over on release from management. S. 7 empowers the Collector to determine compensation payable in respect of the private forest in accordance with the principles set out in Sub-s. (4) and apportion such compensation in the manner specified in Sub-s. (3). If any improvement has been made by Government in the course of their management, the value thereof should be paid on release from the management. If any improvement has been made by Government in the course of their management, the value thereof should be paid on release from the management. Thus, the whole object of the Act is confined to taking over the management of private forest for a specified period, manage the same and, at the expiry of the period, hand over the forests in as good a condition as they were taken to whomsoever entitled to them. The Act does not contemplate acquisition or transfer of ownership or title from the owner to the Government. On the other hand, it visualises that it is only concerned with the management of forests, owned privately, in public interest or in order to secure proper management of them. It is obvious that the scope of the Land Reforms Act and of the Forest Act is radically different. The Forest Act is an instance of a statute falling within the ambit of Art. 31-A(1)(b) of the Constitution which protects from an attack on the ground of violation of Arts. 14, 19 and 31, a law which takes over the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property. 5. By reason of the application of the Land Reforms Act, the owners ( sic ) of the Nilambur Kovilakam estate shall not be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. The expression “to hold land” has been defined to mean to own land as owner or to possess or enjoy land as possessory mortgagee or as tenant or as intermediary or in one or more of these capacities. Though transfer of title takes place on a notification under S. 18. the policy of fixing a ceiling and forbidding the owners from being entitled to hold the excess over the ceiling has been declared in clear terms. The question is whether, to such excess over the ceiling, the Forest Act is applicable. Though transfer of title takes place on a notification under S. 18. the policy of fixing a ceiling and forbidding the owners from being entitled to hold the excess over the ceiling has been declared in clear terms. The question is whether, to such excess over the ceiling, the Forest Act is applicable. In our opinion, it will be physically impossible to apply the provisions of the Forest Act to the excess land, for the owner, after the commencement of Madras Act 58 of 1961, as amended can no longer hold it in the sense in which the expression has been defined and that, on the notification under S. 18, it will vest in the Government free of all encumbrances, and the owner will no longer be entitled to the excess land. Bat the Forest Act contemplates continuance of title to the land in the owner whoever it may be, and that is why it is required that, while taking over the management, the period for which the management is to be carried on should be specified and that, after that period has expired, the forest has to be delivered back to the owner in as good a condition as it was when possession thereof was taken over. 6. It may be that, in the working of Act 58 of 1961 as amended, there may be time lag and it may even be two or three years before a notification under Sec. 18 is made. But that can make no difference to the inapplicability of the Forest Act to the Nilambur Kovilakam forests. In as much as the Government will be the owner of the excess which the Government is bound to distribute as per the provisions of the Act and the Government, by taking over the management, does not carry on the management on behalf of the owner but for the purpose of presevation and then ultimately returning it, we are clearly of opinion that the Forest Act, once Madras Act 58 of 1961 operates on the land, cannot any longer apply to it. 7. It follows that the notices issued in these cases cannot be sustained. It is not necessary to consider in these cases whether management of the forests held by any one of the petitioners within the ceiling areas can be taken over under the Forest Act. 7. It follows that the notices issued in these cases cannot be sustained. It is not necessary to consider in these cases whether management of the forests held by any one of the petitioners within the ceiling areas can be taken over under the Forest Act. This is because the impugned notices have not proceeded on that basis. 8. The petitions are, therefore, allowed with costs, payable by the contesting Respondents. Counsels fee Rs. 100/- in each of the petitions. W.P. Nos; 1354/1965 etc., 9. These petitions relate to private forests other than the Nilambur Kovilakam forests and involve the same points. In view of our above decision, these petitions are allowed with costs payable by the contesting Respondents. Counsels Fee Rs. 100/- in each petition.