Judgment :- 1. These three Second Appeals raise a common question which was forcefully and pointedly agitated by counsel for the appellants. The suit was one for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs' claim is that they were having possession of the property and that the property was never treated as forest land and that the forest officials trespassed into the property on 23-5-1985. 2. The courts below took the view that the suit itself is not maintainable. Ss.8 and 13 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 which had come into force under the relevant notification dated 11-1-1977, had created a separate and distinct legal forum for the dissolution of controversies centering round the vested forests. Under S.3, all such private forest as are so defined became vested in the Government. As a complement of that idea, S.5 empowers the officials to take action necessary for the protection of the private forests which had so vested in the Government. The power includes one of summary eviction by officers of designated competence as indicated in the Section. Thereafter, S.8 comes in the statutory scheme. That Section is entitled "settlement of disputes" . The entire controversy whether a land is a private forest or not or whether any private forest is vested in the Government or not could be enveloped in that Section. There are various provisions which would ensure effectively and efficiently the protection of the legitimate rights of citizens. The forest authorities designated in the statute itself are there to safeguard the legitimate rights of the affected parties. After having provided the powers to the forest officials to protect the vested forests and after having provided remedies open to the citizen to obtain relief from unjustified encroachment of their legitimate rights, the Section barring jurisdiction of the Civil Courts manifests itself under S.13. There cannot be any doubt that, having regard to the statutory scheme and the elaborate provision dealing with the forest controversies in relation doubt that, having regard to the statutory scheme and the elaborate provision dealing with the forest controversies in relation to the vested forests, the remedies of the citizen in relation to the forest have necessarily to be resolved by the forum specifically provided in that behalf. The courts below were correct in taking the view that the Civil Courts jurisdiction is interdicted in the circumstances. That view cannot be faulted. 3. The courts below were correct in taking the view that the Civil Courts jurisdiction is interdicted in the circumstances. That view cannot be faulted. 3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that a Commissioner had reported. something about the nature of the land and the conditions in which, it was noticed at that time. In view of the conclusion which has been come to, it is unnecessary to comment upon the report of the Commissioner. It may however be useful to remember that in relation to many areas under the vested forests, Commission reports, were ultimately found to be totally unreliable though they had found their entry into the court records. The second appeals are dismissed.