Judgment :- K.K. Usha, J. These writ appeals arise out of a common judgment in O.P. Nos. 7271 /92,7866/92 and 9044/91. The question that arises for consideration is interpretation of R.3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. Applications filed by the petitioners in the original Petitions under R.3(1) were rejected by the custodian for the reason that they were filed out of time. Petitioners' challenge against the above view taken by the custodian was accepted by the learned Single Judge. In the common judgment, which is reported as 1992 (2) KLT 353 (Sankaranarayanan v. State of Kerala) learned judge took the view that the period of limitation prescribed in R.3 is ultra vires the provision of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and assignment) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and therefore, the custodian should have dealt with the applications on merits and disposed of the same in accordance with law. Thus, orders passed by the custodian rejecting the applications as barred by limitation, were quashed by the learned Single Judge and a direction was issued to the custodian to dispose of the applications in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the above, State and Conservator and Custodian of Vested Forests have filed the writ appeals. 2. Petitions in the original petition had filed applications under the Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 before the Forest Tribunal Calicut claiming exemption regarding certain items of properties belonging to them from the provisions of the Act. These applications were rejected by the Tribunal for the reason that they were barred by limitation and that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the above, they filed appeals before this Court. These appeals were disposed of under a common judgment dated. 19.9.1988. The appeals were permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants without prejudice to their right, if any, to seek relief before any other forum. Pursuant thereto, they filed applications under R.3 before the Custodian of Private Forests on 14.10.1988. R.3 reads as follows: "3. These appeals were disposed of under a common judgment dated. 19.9.1988. The appeals were permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants without prejudice to their right, if any, to seek relief before any other forum. Pursuant thereto, they filed applications under R.3 before the Custodian of Private Forests on 14.10.1988. R.3 reads as follows: "3. Owner claiming exemption to apply: (1) Where any owner claims exemption in respect of any land held by him from the provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.3, on the ground that - (a) Such land is under his personal cultivation and is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964); or (b) such land is held under a valid document of title executed before the 10th day of May, 1971 and is intended for cultivation by him which together with other lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is applicable does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under S.82 of the said Act, he shall on or before the 25th August, 1974 apply to the Custodian in Form No.1 specifying the lands in respect of which he claims such exemption. (2) An application under sub-r.(1) shall be accompanied by such documents as may be necessary for the verification of the particulars mentioned in the application. (3) Every application under sub-r.(1) shall be accomplished by a Court Fee S tamp of Rs. 10 (Rupees Ten Only)." 3. The Custodian took the view that since the petitions were filed after 25.8.1974, they are not maintainable as per the provisions contained under sub-r.(b) of R.3. Relying on the decision of this Court in Jayadevan v. State of Kerala, 1981 KLT 86, it was contended by the petitioners that the period of limitation prescribed under R.3 is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and therefore, an application filed even after 25th August, 1974 has also to be entertained by the Custodian. Relying on the decision of this Court in Jayadevan v. State of Kerala, 1981 KLT 86, it was contended by the petitioners that the period of limitation prescribed under R.3 is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and therefore, an application filed even after 25th August, 1974 has also to be entertained by the Custodian. Reliance was also placed by the petitioners on a letter addressed by the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary, Forests, Government of Kerala to Chief Conservator of Forests, Trivandrum on 13.7.1989 expressing a view that the limitation provision in R.3(b) cannot be considered as legally authorised by the statute and that the Custodian of Vested Forests may, therefore, be allowed to entertain an application for further scrutiny and decision. This argument was found favour with the learned Single Judge. Learned Judge has observed as follows: "It is by virtue of provisions of exemptions contained in sub-s.2 and 3 of S.3 of the Act that application under R.3 of the Exemption Rules is filed. The exemptions are provided under the Act and unless the Act itself empowers the delegated authority to provide a time limit for making application claiming exemption, the delegated authority cannot prescribe any period of limitation. However, R.3 of the Exemption Rules says that application should be filed before the 25th August 1974. The delegated authority has not been empowered to prescribe any period of limitation in respect of an application based on the exemption provided under sub-ss.2 and 3 of S.3 of the Act. So construed, it has to be held that period of limitation prescribed in R.3 of Exemption Rules is ultra vires the Act and R.3 has to be read omitting the words "or before the 25th August, 1974". It must have been for this reason that the Government gave Ext.P2 advice stating that the prescription of the period of limitation is statutorily unauthorised and the Custodian is competent to deal with the application as if no such time has been prescribed, and the applications have to be disposed of in accordance with law." 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the dictum laid down in Jayadevan's case, cannot have any application, while interpreting R.3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the dictum laid down in Jayadevan's case, cannot have any application, while interpreting R.3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules. According to learned Government Pleader, the provisions contained under R.3 is not in any way contradictory to any provision in the Act; on the other hand, it is in addition to the provisions under the Act. Therefore, the question of the Rule being ultra vires the provisions of the Act, does not arise in this case. In support of his contention, and to explain the effect of various relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, learned Government Pleader relied on the following decisions of this Court: Ranga Sesha Hills (P) Lt d., v. State of Kerala, 1991 (2) KLT 49, State of Kerala v. Subramonian Namboodiri, 1992 (2) KLT 300, John Kurian v. State of Kerala, 1995 (1) KLT 446 and Balan v. State of Kerala, 1976 KLT 'SN.18 (case No. 41). 5. We find merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. S.3 of the Act which contains the provisions for vesting of private forests in Government, reads as follows: "3. Private forests vest in Government: - (1) 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 forests shall stand extinguished. (2) Nothing contained in sub-s.(1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of land comprised in private-forests held by an owner under his personal cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, (3) Nothing contained in sub-s.(1) shall apply in respect of so much extent of private forests held by an owner under a valid registered document of title executed before the appointed day and intended for cultivation by him, which together with another lands held by him to which Chapter III of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, is applicable, does not exceed the extent of the ceiling area applicable to him under S.82 of the said Act." A reading of the above section would show that on the Act coming into force all private forests in the State of Kerala shall transfer to and vest in Government. Sub-ss.(2) and (3) deal with exempted categories. It is relevant to note that S.3 does not provide for any procedure to be followed by those who can put forward claim for exemption under sub-s.(2) and (3). The only provision in the Act which deals with the remedy for those who want to take advantage of the exemption under sub-ss.(2) and (3) is S.8. The relevant portion of S.8 reads as follows: "8. Settlement of disputes: (1) Where any dispute arises as to whether - (a) any land is a private forest or not; or (b) 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. (2) Any application under sub-s.(1) shall be in such form as may be prescribed." When Jayadevan's case was rendered, the words 'within such period as may be prescribed' were not there in sub-s.(1) of S.8. It only provided that the person who claims that the land is not a private forest or that the private forest was not vested in the Government, may apply to the tribunal for decision of the dispute. It only provided that the person who claims that the land is not a private forest or that the private forest was not vested in the Government, may apply to the tribunal for decision of the dispute. R.3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 provided that an application under S.8 shall be presented to the Tribunal within 60 days from the date on which the act which gives rise for dispute was done. This Rules, to the extent it prescribed the period of limitation, was challenged in Jayadevan's case and the challenge was upheld. It was observed as follows: "For the above reasons, we hold that clause (5) of S.7 of the Act which provides that "the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed" relates to the procedure of the Tribunal after an application under S.8 is instituted before it and it does not relate to any time limit for the presentation of the application itself. S.17 of the Act which empowers the Government by notification in the gazette to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, also does not empower the delegated authority to prescribe a time-limit for the presentation of an application under S.8 before the Forest Tribunal. The dispute that is contemplated by S.8 for settlement by the Forest Tribunal is as to whether any land is a private forest or not any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not. The question for decision therefore, under S.8 of the Act relates to the applicant's title to immovable property and his right to adjudication of such title when threatened cannot be taken away by a rule framed by the Government prescribing a period of limitation which is not authorised by the Act itself." 6. We do not think that the above principle can be applied while interpreting R.3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules. There is no provision in the Act which provides for a remedy by way of an application before the Custodian of private forests as the one contained in S.8 for an application before the Tribunal. Such a remedy is provided only under R.3. There is no provision in the Act which provides for a remedy by way of an application before the Custodian of private forests as the one contained in S.8 for an application before the Tribunal. Such a remedy is provided only under R.3. This Court had occasion to consider and reject a contention that the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules are beyond the rule making power conferred under S.17 and are contradictory to S.8 of the Act, in 1976 KLT SN 41 (page 18) supra. 7. The scope of the Rules came up for further consideration by this Court in 1992 (2) KLT 300. It was observed that it is the right of the owner of the land to approach the Tribunal for decision of the dispute under S.8 when, once a dispute is raised. That cannot be taken away by any Rules. It was then observed as follows: "According to us, what the Exemption from Vesting Rules provide is an additional remedy by which the owner may get relief under S.3(2) or 3(3) without approaching the Tribunal. It enables the Custodian himself to exclude the lands where it is due. It only provides an alternate forum for providing speedy relief to an owner by excluding the lands from the vesting even at the threshold. This apparently is the reason why a very short period of time was provided for making an application under those Rules namely, on or before 25 August 1974. Failure to apply under those Rules cannot therefore deprive the owner of the benefit of an adjudication under S.8(1)(b)". In 1991 (2) KLT 49, this Court has considered the scope of Ss.3(1) and 6 of the Act. It is held that by virtue of sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Act, vesting takes place by operation of law on 10th May, 1971. It means that S.3(1) is the provision by which effect of the Act, namely, vesting of the private forests in Government, is brought to focus. Sub-ss.(2) and (3) deal with those categories of land which are exempted from vesting, on the Act coming into force. Therefore, we cannot, with great respect, agree with the view taken by the learned judge that application under R.3 is made by virtue of the provisions contained under sub-ss.(2) and (3) of S.3 of the Act. There is no provision for an application to any authority provided under S.3. Therefore, we cannot, with great respect, agree with the view taken by the learned judge that application under R.3 is made by virtue of the provisions contained under sub-ss.(2) and (3) of S.3 of the Act. There is no provision for an application to any authority provided under S.3. If that be so, absence of a reference to period of limitation under S.3 cannot make the outer date fixed in R.3 of the Exemption Rules ultra vires the provisions of S.3. 8. In 1995 (1) KLT 446, a learned Single Judge, while considering the scope of R.3 of the Exemption Rules, observed that the scope of the said Rules are confined to make a claim at the time of survey and the boundaries being marked under S.6. In a case where the claim is sought to be made after lands have been demarcated and notified as private forests long ago, according to learned judge, the Rule has no application. This view is in consonance with the observation made by the Bench in 1976 KLT SN 41 (page 18) when the vires of the Exemption Rules was considered and upheld. The Rules, as it was originally notified on 23.4.1974, provided in R.3 that the application shall be filed within a period of one month from the date of publication of the Rules in the Gazette. Later, R.3 was amended by notification published in Gazette dated. 8.8.1974, substituting the above words by words and figures, "on or before 25th August, 1974". The cut off date thus fixed under R.3 cannot be understood as a period of limitation. R.3 provides for a remedy to the owners of the land at the initial stage of the vesting proceedings under the Act provided they approach the Custodian of Vested Forests within the time prescribed therein. We therefore, hold that no portion of R.3 is ultra vires the Act. In the result, we reverse the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. Nos. 7271/92, 7866/92 and 9044/91 and dismiss the original petitions. The appeals stand allowed.