Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal was preferred against the common order in OA. 271/74, 272/74, 273/74 and 274/74 which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 15-12-1989 rejecting the applications preferred under section 8 of Act 26/71. 2. All the above mentioned applications were earlier dismissed by a common order dated 22-8-1977. Aggrieved by those order MFA, 326, 386, 387 and 388 of 1977 were preferred by the applicants before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and dispose of those cases in accordance with law. There is some controversy with regard to the scope of the remand order. We may extract the relevant portions of the remand order to resolved that controversy: "The appellants in these cases are four brothers. They filed applicants before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat claiming that certain extents of land which they obtained under a partition of 1972 and which they had been jointly entitled to prior to the partition were outside the purview of Act 26 of 1971. Their case was that these lands had been converted into teak plantation long before the commencement of the said Act and therefore these lands would not fall within the definition of Private Forest in the Act. That question is answered directly by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M.F.A.Nos. 235 of 1977 and 346 of 1978. In the light of that decision there is no scope for interference with the decision of the Tribunal on its point. There is another question urged by counsel for the appellants in these cases. It is said that the each one of the appellants held land (inclusive of other lands which they had below the ceiling area and further that these lands were under their own personal cultivation and hence the lands fall within Sec 3(2) of Act 26 of 1971. Whether they have other land which together with the lands in dispute would be in excess of the ceiling limit is not a matter on which there is a finding either way by the Forest Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the matter on the simple basis that the partition deed under which each one of the appellants obtained portions of the teak plantation was executed only in 1972. The Tribunal disposed of the matter on the simple basis that the partition deed under which each one of the appellants obtained portions of the teak plantation was executed only in 1972. We do not see any relevance in this, for, the 1972 partition only separated their shares by metes and bounds. Even before that they were joint owners and each one had specific shares in the property. It is that share that had to be taken into account for determining the total extent held by them……This being the case the question of applicability of Sec 3(2) calls for examination in the light of what has been said here. Accordingly for that purpose the cases are remitted back to the Forest Tribunal. The Tribunal will consider the matter afresh and dispose of the cases in accordance with law." The matter was subsequently heard by the Tribunal and all the applications were allowed by the Forest Tribunal vide its order dated 15-7-1980. Aggrieved by the same State preferred M.F.A. 467 of 1980 which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 31-1-1986 and again remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. It would be appropriate to refer to a portion of the remand order which reads as follows: "We are sorry to see in spite of remand, the question arising for consideration under Sec 3(2) of the Vesting Act did not receive proper consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Therefore we are constrained, reluctantly so, to remand the matter once again to the Tribunal. It is for the respondents herein to consider whether, additional evidence is necessary. If they want to adduce additional evidence the Tribunal will permit them to do so, so also in the case of the Government. In the result the impugned order is set aside and OA. 271 to 274 of 1974 are remanded to the Forest Tribunal, Palghat for fresh disposal in accordance with law and the observations contained in this judgment. The Appeal is thus allowed but without costs. The case will be called before the Forest Tribunal on 5.3.1986." After remand PW-2, Village Officer was examined. On the side of the applicants Exts. A13 and A14 documents were produced. Ext. X-1 document was produced by the Village officer. Tahsildar, Palghat was examined as CW-1 as court witness. A commission was taken out who submitted his report C-1 dated 27-10-1989. On the side of the applicants Exts. A13 and A14 documents were produced. Ext. X-1 document was produced by the Village officer. Tahsildar, Palghat was examined as CW-1 as court witness. A commission was taken out who submitted his report C-1 dated 27-10-1989. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the disputed properties involved in all these applications are private forest ? 2. Whether the respective petitioners have title to the disputed property ? 3. Whether the petitioners are within the ceiling limit ? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to benefits under section 3(2) of the Act ? On the first issue the Tribunal held that the disputed property was a private forest governed by the M.P.P.F. Act. Second issue was whether the petitioners have title to the disputed property. Tribunal held that the applicants had common title to the disputed properties as per Ext. A1. Counsel for the applicants assailed this finding stating that the Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of the remand order for taking the view applicants had common title to the disputed properties as per A1. Placing reliance on the common judgment in MFA. 326/77 and connected matters counsel contended that the Bench had already held that 1972 partition had no relevance and even prior to that the applicants had become joint owners and each one had separate shares in the property and it is that share that had to be taken the account for determining the total extent held by them. Counsel submitted this finding has become final. Consequently Tribunal was not justified in holding that all the applicants had common title to the disputed properties as per Ext. A1. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Achuthan Nair v. Raman, 1979 KLT 119; decision of the Apex Court in Nainsingh v. Koonwariee, AIR 1970 SC 997 and also the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Mudallar v. K. Pillai, AIR 1970 Mad. 328 and contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in going beyond the terms of the remand order. 3. With regard to the third issue whether the petitioners were holding lands within the ceiling limit Tribunal held that the applicants had failed to establish that they are holding lands within the ceiling area. 328 and contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in going beyond the terms of the remand order. 3. With regard to the third issue whether the petitioners were holding lands within the ceiling limit Tribunal held that the applicants had failed to establish that they are holding lands within the ceiling area. Counsel submitted the question as to whether applicants had got land in excess of the ceiling area is a matter to be adjudicated by the Taluk Land Board. Counsel submitted earlier Taluk Land Board had passed an order on 15-12-1989 holding that the applicants had held land in excess of the ceiling limit and that order was challenged in CRP. 1013, 1166, 1168 and 1185 and 1998 and this court vide order dated 9-12-1998 disposed of those civil revision petitions setting aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and the matter was remitted back to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration. Subsequently Taluk Land Board has passed a revised order dated 26-7-2000 holding that the applicants in O.A. 271, 272 and 273 of 1974 were having land in excess of the ceiling limit. As far as applicant in O.A. 274/74 is concerned it was held that he has no excess land. Counsel submitted against the decision in O.A. 274/74 no revision petition was filed by the State. Counsel submitted against the order holding that some of the applicants had got lands exceeding ceiling limit, CRP. 2003, 2004 and 2005 of 2000 were preferred by them and those revision petitions are pending before this Court. 4. Counsel submitted the question whether the applicants have got land in excess of the ceiling limit has not become final and pending consideration before this Court. Forest Tribunal with regard to the 4th issue whether the applicants are entitled to benefits under Section 3(2) of the Act held that the applicants were not in personal cultivation of the disputed property with teak on the appointed day. It was held that the teak growth appeared to be natural and were not planted by human effort. Tribunal held that the applicants had not satisfactorily established that the properties were under their personal cultivation on the appointed day and consequently they were not entitled to benefit under Section 3(2) of the Act. 5. Last finding of the Tribunal was seriously attacked by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Tribunal held that the applicants had not satisfactorily established that the properties were under their personal cultivation on the appointed day and consequently they were not entitled to benefit under Section 3(2) of the Act. 5. Last finding of the Tribunal was seriously attacked by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Counsel submitted after remand a commission was taken out who submitted report dated 27-10-89. Forest Tribunal was not satisfied with the commission report. Consequently Tribunal himself made a local inspection after giving notice to the parties. Advocates were present at the time of inspection. Placing reliance on the information gathered on his personal visit the Tribunal discarded the commission report and decided the issue. This procedure followed by the Forest Tribunal, according to the counsel, was contrary to the Bench decision of the Court in Cheekutty v. Land Tribunal, Alangad, 1975 KLT 628. 6. Counsel appearing for the respondents State submitted there is no infirmity in the procedure followed by the Tribunal conducting local inspection. Tribunal was only conducting local inspection. Tribunal was only conducting local inspection for a proper appreciation of the case pending before the Tribunal. Counsel submitted there is no procedural irregularity in gathering information by the Tribunal by conducting local inspection by himself. Learned Government Pleader also did not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on other issues as well. Counsel submitted earlier Division Bench in MFA. 326/77 and connected matters had set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter directing the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Counsel submitted there is no specific finding by the Division bench earlier on any of the issues raised by the parties. Consequently counsel submitted decisions cited by the counsel for the applicants are not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. We may at the very outset examine the propriety of the Forest Tribunal conducting local inspection for deciding the question as to whether the applicants are entitled to exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act. Applicants had claimed benefits under Section 3(2) of the Act contending that they were in personal cultivation of the property on the appointed day. According to them they had planted teak between the year 1945 and 1954. Reference was also made to Ext. Applicants had claimed benefits under Section 3(2) of the Act contending that they were in personal cultivation of the property on the appointed day. According to them they had planted teak between the year 1945 and 1954. Reference was also made to Ext. A2 partition deed of the year 1972 and contended that there is indication that the property was a teak plantation. Reference were also made to Ext. A3 agreement entered into in the year 1960, wherein according to the counsel, there is reference with regard to the teak plantation. A3 it was pointed out, is a registered document executed on 6-8-1960. Reference was also made to C-1 report of the advocate commissioner which would indicate, according to the counsel, all the trees are aged between 25 to 30 years. Counsel submitted all those materials would indicate that the property was teak plantation prior to the appointed day. We find that Forest Tribunal while dealing this issue held as follows : "Smt. M.A. Zohan, Advocate was deputed as Commissioner, She has stated that on the east and north the disputed property in contiguous natural forest. Even on the south, it is recently planted rubber plantation. Coppice growth of forest trees were noticed by the Commissioner. The disputed property lies without any division around it. The only observation of commissioner is "the teak trees stand in raws and have the appearance of being planted. All the trees at eye distance, seem to be about 25 to 30 years old. Some have started flowering. The coppice growth beneath is only seattered and are only small plants. The teak trees look alike without much difference in girth, height etc." After Commissioner submitted her report, I made a local inspection of the properties after giving notice and the parties and their advocates were present at the time of my inspection. I have noticed forest on the northern boundary of these properties. On the west, commissioner has noticed kutty's Rubber Plantation. But I found 'Kutty's teak plantation also on the west of the disputed property. As reported by the Commissioner the nature of the property, in slope of a hill, and its vegetation consists of mainly of teak trees, But I found that these teak trees were interspersed with other forest trees like poola, vaka, mala-vaka, venga, karayam, pathiri, venteak, poovam, irool, malaveppu, albescenia etc. As reported by the Commissioner the nature of the property, in slope of a hill, and its vegetation consists of mainly of teak trees, But I found that these teak trees were interspersed with other forest trees like poola, vaka, mala-vaka, venga, karayam, pathiri, venteak, poovam, irool, malaveppu, albescenia etc. Those forest trees range from 30 to 100 years in age. Most of the teak trees grown in the disputed area also varied the age from 30 to 100 years and even more. The applicant told me that these teak trees were planted between 1945 and 1954. But I noticed that the teak trees varies in age from 30 to 100 years and were not of uniform age. Most of them have sprouted from the coppice stumps, because this can be clearly seen from the girth of the basement. It is also incorrect to say that those trees are standing in raw, at equal distance. Of course in some cases there were 8 to 10 trees standing in a line, but it is totally incorrect to state that all the teak trees are standing in a raw at equal distance. It also appear to me that as in usual teak plantation, thinning has not been done……It would appear that the Commissioner had not paid much attention on this aspect because she has stated in her report "at eye distance, seem to be about 25 to 30 years old….the teak trees look alike without such difference in growth, height etc." The Forest Tribunal therefore took strong exception to the Commission Report and held that the Commissioner has given only a very generalized version looking at the trees from a distance and this has probably led her to misjudge the age of the trees and their appearance. The above mentioned facts would indicate that the case was decided much on the basis of the personal inspection conducted by the Forest Tribunal. 8. Forest Tribunal of course could conduct personal inspection to understand and appreciate the materials already produced. Tribunal if on inspection gathers any reliable materials the same should be put to the parties and elicit their views. Forest Tribunal if tries to collect materials to decide the issue behind the back of the parties the same would naturally prejudice the parties to the litigation. Parties would not be in a position to cross-examine the Forest Tribunal. Tribunal if on inspection gathers any reliable materials the same should be put to the parties and elicit their views. Forest Tribunal if tries to collect materials to decide the issue behind the back of the parties the same would naturally prejudice the parties to the litigation. Parties would not be in a position to cross-examine the Forest Tribunal. Parties would be unaware on what materials Forest Tribunal had gathered and based his conclusion. In this connection we may refer to the decision of this court in 1975 KLT 628 (supra) wherein a Bench of this Court has considered the propriety of making a local inspection by Land Tribunal governed by the Land Reforms Act, 1964 and the Land Reforms (tenancy) Rules, 1970 and held as follows : "Judicial and quasi-judicial Tribunals are bound to dispose of cases before them on the basis of evidence let in by the parties. If by local inspection they seek to gather evidence and make use of such evidence for coming to a decision in the cause it will be highly inequitable, for, the normal process of placing the material gathered before the parties so as to enable them to answer such material would not be available in the case of any material that the Presiding Officers may gather by local inspection. They cannot be subjected to cross-examination on their reports. For, if they are subjected to such examination, they become disqualified to decide the case before them. So long as decisions do not depend upon subjective satisfaction of such Tribunals, local inspections conducted with a view to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the plea of either party would be ill-advised………The object of the power given to the court to inspect property is to enable it to understand questions arising in the case and to follow as well as apply the evidence. Though there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure that the Judge who makes the local inspection should record notes of inspection, that would be desirable. But it is obligatory that he should not record his impressions or opinions. Making such local inspections must be with due notice to the parties and not behind their back. Though there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure that the Judge who makes the local inspection should record notes of inspection, that would be desirable. But it is obligatory that he should not record his impressions or opinions. Making such local inspections must be with due notice to the parties and not behind their back. In short, the purpose of local inspection by a court is not to use any material gathered by it or the impression gained by such local inspection in deciding the case one way or the other. That should depend upon the evidence in the case. Possibly in some cases such evidence could be properly appreciated with the assistance of a local inspection of the property and the purpose to be served by such inspection properly and in the correct perspective. The rule does not provide for the Tribunal collecting evidence by such local inspection." Another Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Nanu 1991(2) KLT 251 also examined the scope of Section 12(e) of Vesting Act read with Order 18 Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure and noted in that case that the Tribunal had not based its findings on the notes of inspection it made at the time of inspection and not adverted to the notes of inspection but decided on the basis of evidence adduced in that case. We may also refer to yet another decision of this Court in Merchiston Estate v. State of Kerala, 1997(2)KLT 572. In that case earlier Full Bench decision reported in 1975 KLT 628 (supra) was not adverted to. However, reference was made to the Division Bench decision of this Court on 1991(2) KLT 251 (supra) . The Bench however took the view that the local inspection report though cannot be used as evidence it can be used by the authority for assessing the already existing evidence in the case. It was held the local inspection report can be used for the better appreciation of the said evidence on record. We reiterate that if the Tribunal is making any local inspection and could gather any fresh material which has got a bearing in the ultimate decision of the case the same should be put to the parties and only after receiving their opinion on those materials court could appreciate the evidence adduced in the case and decide the matter. 9. We reiterate that if the Tribunal is making any local inspection and could gather any fresh material which has got a bearing in the ultimate decision of the case the same should be put to the parties and only after receiving their opinion on those materials court could appreciate the evidence adduced in the case and decide the matter. 9. Forest Tribunal has been constituted under sec. 7 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act. Sec. 7(5) of the Act says that the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed . Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of sec. 7 and sec. 17 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, framed the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules 1972, Rules 5 relates to the power of the Tribunal to inspect land, adjoining the land in respect of which dispute is to be decided and to require assistance of certain official. We may extract the said rule for easy reference. 5. "Power of Tribunal to inspect land, adjoining the land in respect of which dispute is to be decided and to require assistance of certain official :- (1) The Tribunal shall have power to inspect any land adjoining the land in respect of which a dispute has arisen for decision. (2) For the purpose of conducting inspection of any land, the Tribunal may require the assistance of any Revenue or Forest Official of the district in which the land is situate. (3) The Tribunal shall, when it requires the assistance of any Revenue or Forest Official under sub-rule (2), make a request to the concerned District Collector, at least one week before the date fixed for the inspection to provide such assistance, and the District Collector shall comply with such request". Rule 5(2) indicate that for the purpose of conducting inspection of any land, the Tribunal may require the assistance of any Revenue or Forest Official of the district in which the land is situate. Rule 7 deals with grant of copies. Copies of evidence recorded, documents filed or orders passed, by the Tribunal, may be granted by the Tribunal to any person entitled to obtain copies thereof in accordance with the rules governing the grant of copies of any proceeding or document filed in a Civil Court. Rule 7 deals with grant of copies. Copies of evidence recorded, documents filed or orders passed, by the Tribunal, may be granted by the Tribunal to any person entitled to obtain copies thereof in accordance with the rules governing the grant of copies of any proceeding or document filed in a Civil Court. We may indicate in appropriate cases Forest Tribunal may have power to conduct a local inspection. We find in this case Tribunal had gathered materials by conducting local inspection. He had personally ascertained the age of the trees. He had not sought the assistance of any experts so as to determine the age of teak trees. He has decided the issue relying upon his own personal knowledge and the information gathered. Commission report was brushed aside on the basis of his own notion with regard to the age of the trees. No opportunity was given to the applicants to rebut the materials gathered and the opinion formed by the Forest Tribunal. We find that Forest Tribunal has made local inspection not for properly understanding the facts and materials produced before it but gathered materials for deciding the issue between the parties. This in our view cannot be sustained in law. The Tribunal could get the assistance of experts to determine the age of the trees. 10. We are therefore once again constrained to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for de novo consideration. Since we are inclined to set aside the order on that short ground we need not examine the other contention raised by either side with regard to the scope of remand order. We leave all those questions open without expressing opinion on the scope of the remand order or on the merits of the case. 11. We therefore set aside the order of the Forest Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. Considering the fact that this is a long pending matter we are inclined to give a direction to the Forest Tribunal to pass orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Parties are given opportunity to adduce evidence. Send back the records immediately. Parties would appear before the Tribunal on 1-6-2002. Parties are given opportunity to adduce evidence. Send back the records immediately. Parties would appear before the Tribunal on 1-6-2002. Original applications would be disposed of within a period of six months thereafter. Appeal is disposed of as above.