Judgment :- Bhat, Ag. C.J. Appellant herein claiming to be owner of 81.22 acres of unsurveyed land (private forest) filed writ petition seeking to restrain respondents, namely, State of Kerala, Custodian of Vested Forests and Divisional Forest Officer, Mathottam, Kozhikode, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land. He took the stand that the land involved in the petition has not vested in the State under S.3(1) of Mtc Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, 1971 (for short the act" ). The learned single judge who heard the matter at the stage of admission dismissed the petition pointing out that petitioner's remedy was to move the Forest Tribunal by filing an application under S.8(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by this judgment he has filed this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though according to S.8 whenever there is a dispute as to whether any land is a private forest or not, or any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not, the claimant is entitled to move an application before the Forest Tribunal. The expression "dispute" has to be read in the light of Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules (for short 'the Tribunal rules') and Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Rules (for short' the assignment rules'), a combined reading of which would indicate that a notification is a pre-condition for vesting and dispute can arise only after the notification. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the preamble of the Act which states that the Act is provided for the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof. Learned counsel further invited our attention to S.17(1) of the Act which confers on the Government power to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. 3. It is necessary to understand the scheme of the Act. The Act is to provide for vesting in the Government of private forests in the State. "Private forest" is defined in S.2(f) of the Act. "Appointed day" is defined in S.2(a) of the Act as meaning 10th May, 1971. S.3(1) is the provision which declares vesting of private forests in the Government. The Act is to provide for vesting in the Government of private forests in the State. "Private forest" is defined in S.2(f) of the Act. "Appointed day" is defined in S.2(a) of the Act as meaning 10th May, 1971. S.3(1) is the provision which declares vesting of private forests in the Government. It says, inter alia, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions-of sub-sections (2) and (3,), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala Shall by virtue of this Act. stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in any private forest shall stand extinguished. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of S.3 provide for certain exemptions, that is, lands which attract the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) are exempted from vesting and shall not be treated as having vested in the Government under sub-section (1). Going by the above provision in S.3(1) read in the light of the definition of "appointed day" in S.2(a), what is clear is that on the appointed day, namely, 10th May 1971 all private forests, subject to exceptions contemplated in sub-sections (2) and (3), shall vest in the State. 4. The provision in S.3(1) is sought to be countered by learned counsel for the appellants who relies on S.6 of the Act as well as Rule 2A of the Assignment Rules. Subsection (1) of S.6 states, inter alia, that as soon as may be after the appointed day, the custodian shall cause the boundaries of the private forests vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of S.3 to be demarcated. Rule 2A referred to above deals with demarcation of boundaries. Demarcation of private forests in pursuance of S.6 shall be effected by erecting cairns along the boundaries. Sub-section (2) states that a notification specifying the details of the private forest, the boundaries of which have been demarcated such as survey and subdivision number if available and local name and describing its boundaries shall immediately be published simultaneously in the village office, panchayat office, office of the Forest Tribunal, Range office, office of the Divisional Forest Office and the office of the Custodian. Sub-section (3) requires that the fact that a notification has been published under sub-rule (2) shall be published in two or more newspapers having circulation in the locality. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would have it that though the appointed day is declared to be 10th May 1971, in the eyes of law vesting does not as a matter of fact take place on that day, but takes place only when notification as contemplated in S.6 of the Act or Rule 2A of the Assignment Rules is published in the gazette or newspapers and as long as such a notification has not been published, law cannot recognise a dispute within the meaning of S.8. Learned counsel seeks reliance on Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules which says, inter alia, that an application under S.8 shall be presented within 60 days from 6th August 1981 or from the date of publication of the notification under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Rules, 1974 in respect of the land to which the dispute relates, whichever is later. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that cause of action for application is the publication of notification which takes the land of an owner and as long as notification has not been issued, application under S.8 cannot be instituted. Having bestowed our careful attention to the argument we are not able to agree with the same. 6. By virtue of sub-section (l) of S.3 of the Act, vesting takes place, by operation of law on 10th May 1971. No provision in the Act postpones the vesting to any day subsequent to the appointed day. Issuance of notification is something which must follow ordinarily the demarcation of boundaries. S. 6(1) indicates that demarcation of boundaries is the duty of custodian who has to perform it "as soon as may be after the appointed day". It is therefore' futile to contend that vesting is postponed till the Custodian of vested forests demarcates the boundaries and issues notification after providing for exemption of such lands as may attract sub-sections (2) or (3) of S.3. 7. Sub-section (1) of S.8 is clear, unambiguous and categoric in its terms. It is therefore' futile to contend that vesting is postponed till the Custodian of vested forests demarcates the boundaries and issues notification after providing for exemption of such lands as may attract sub-sections (2) or (3) of S.3. 7. Sub-section (1) of S.8 is clear, unambiguous and categoric in its terms. Where any dispute arises as to whether any land is a private forest or not, or any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not, the person who claims that the land is not a private forest or that the private forest has not vested in the Government, may within such period as may be prescribed apply to the Tribunal for decision of the dispute. The expression "dispute" has not been defined in the Act. It must therefore receive its ordinary meaning. According to the appellant 81.22 acres of private forest belonging to him has not vested in the State for the reason that it is entitled to be exempted under sub-section (2) or (3) of S.3 of the Act and since notification has not been issued so as to include the land in his possession he is now constrained to come to court. The State is taking steps to assign the land to persons eligible for the same. The question of assignment arises only after vesting. There can be no assignment without vesting. This would mean that the State and the Custodian of Vested Forests have taken the stand that the land has vested. The contention of the appellant is that the land has not vested. Certainly this state of affairs proves the existence of a dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes before us that the Custodian has issued a notification as contemplated in Rule 2A of the Assignment Rules taking in several tracts of private forests in Kozhikode taluk. His contention is that the land dealt with in the subject matter of the writ petition is not included in the notification. This certainly amounts to raising a dispute. There is a notification dealing with private forests in Kozhikode taluk. Obviously the State has taken the stand that the land involved in the writ petition is comprised in the notification while the appellant takes the contrary stand. There is certainly a dispute on the question whether the notification takes in the land or not and whether the land has vested or not. Obviously the State has taken the stand that the land involved in the writ petition is comprised in the notification while the appellant takes the contrary stand. There is certainly a dispute on the question whether the notification takes in the land or not and whether the land has vested or not. The pre-condition for filing an application contemplated in S.8(1) has certainly arisen in the case. It is therefore open to the appellant before us to move the Forest Tribunal by an appropriate application, subject to other conditions of the Act and the relevant Rules. 8. We do not understand R.3 of the Tribunal Rules as precluding an aggrieved party from moving an application even if a notification has not been issued. The mere fact that the appellant takes the' position that the notification issued under the Act does not take in his land, cannot preclude the operation of sub-section (1) of S.8. Whether the appellant's land is included in the notification or not is the very essence of the dispute in the case and that dispute has to be resolved in accordance with the scheme provided by the Act. It is not open to the appellant to by-pass the scheme of the Act and approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We agree fully with the conclusions arrived at by the learned single judge. We therefore find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.