Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal arises out of the revised order dated 8.5.1992 in O.A.No 158 of 1990 of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. Application was filed originally before the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad which vide order-dated 9.9.1987 held that the application was time barred. Tribunal took the stand that as per Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests Tribunal Rules, 1972 the application should have been filed within sixty days from 6.8.1981. Tribunal also found that notification dated 10.10.1979 under Rule 3 was published on 14.12.1981. Plea was raised before the Tribunal that notification was invalid but was rejected by the Tribunal stating that even if there was no notification, application should have been filed within sixty days from 6.8.1981. Aggrieved by the same the matter was taken up before this court by filing M.F.A. No 383 of 1988. This court disposed of the same along with another connected matter on 3.8.1988. A Bench of this court examined the scope of Sections 6,8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short the Vesting Act) and Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 (for short the Vesting Rules) and held as follows: “We are of the view that the Tribunal has not properly apprehended the scope and effect of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is evident that the application can be filed either within sixty days from 6.8.1981 or within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification under Rule 2A(2) of the Vesting and Assignment Rules, 1974 whichever is later. Admittedly, the applications were not filed within sixty days from 6.8.1981. The only question is whether the second limb of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972, is attracted. In fact, that is the only provision, which is relevant in these two cases. So, the question is whether the applications are filed within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification under rule 2A(2) of the Vesting and Assignment Rules, 1974. The State and the Custodian took up the plea that there was such a notification dated 10.10.1979, which was published on 14.12.1981, and so the applications filed in 1987 are patently barred. In evaluating the rival contentions of the parties, various questions arise for consideration. The State and the Custodian took up the plea that there was such a notification dated 10.10.1979, which was published on 14.12.1981, and so the applications filed in 1987 are patently barred. In evaluating the rival contentions of the parties, various questions arise for consideration. Firstly, it should be proved that there was a notification-dated 10.10.1979, which was published on 14.12.1981. The second question is whether the above notification satisfies the requirements of rule 2A(2) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974. In order to evaluate this question, the real content of Section 6 of the Act read with rule 2A of the Assignment Rules, 1974 should be apprehended. Is it a case where the notification should literally comply with all the requirements stated in rule 2A(2) and (3) or is it a case where substantial compliance with rule 2A(2) or (3) is sufficient? On determination of this question either way, the further question will arise as to whether the notification stated to have been published on 14.12.1981 satisfies the requirements of rule 2A(2) and (3) has to be determined by the Tribunal. The applicants have a case that though the notification was published on 14.12.1981, it is invalid for the reason that the boundaries have not been demarcated. The question is whether the requirement that the boundaries should be demarcated is mandatory or substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that rule 2A(2) and (3) of the Assignment Rules 1974 should be literally complied with and it is mandatory, when it is a case where there is no publication of the notification as envisaged by rule 2A(2) and as satisfied by the second limb of rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972. On the other hand if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion on a reading of Section 6 read with rule 2A(2) and (3) of the Assignment Rules, 1974 that a substantial compliance of the said rule is there, still the further question arise as to whether the notification in the instant case will satisfy the requirements and can be considered to be a notification under the said sub-rule as envisaged in rule 3 of the Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972. These aspects, which are germane to the enquiry, have not even been properly posed or much less adjudicated by the Forest Tribunal. These aspects, which are germane to the enquiry, have not even been properly posed or much less adjudicated by the Forest Tribunal. When once the Tribunal was told that there is a notification in the instant case dated 10.10.1979 and published on 14.12.1981, the Tribunal stated that the applications should have been filed within sixty days from 14-12-1981. That is so. But, the applicants have a case that the said notification is invalid. The Tribunal assumed that the said notification is invalid and held in that case, the first limb alone will apply. This is an erroneous approach to the question at issue. If the State and the Custodian have a case that there was a notification coming within the second limb of rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules 1972 that should be a notification which should be valid and proper. As to whether the notification in the instant case is a valid and proper one, which will be sufficient in law, is a matter, which requires adjudication. A perusal of the relevant notification along with the requirements of section 6 of the Act, rule 2A of the Assignment Rules, 1974 and rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules, 1972 is required for adjudication in that behalf. None of these aspects were focused or adjudication by the Tribunal.” On the above reasoning the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Tribunal on remand considered the matter in detail and raised the following issues. (i) Whether the petition is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the petition schedule property is a private forest as defined under Act 26 of 1971. (iii) Whether the petition schedule property is liable to be exempted from vesting under Section 3(2) of Act 26 of 1971. (iv) Whether the petition schedule property is liable to be exempted from vesting under Section 3(3) of Act 26 of 1971. (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declaration prayed for? Before the Tribunal on the side of the applicant Exts. A1 to A8 (a) documents were produced and P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the State and Custodian R.W.1 was examined and Exts. B1 to B3 (b) were produced. (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declaration prayed for? Before the Tribunal on the side of the applicant Exts. A1 to A8 (a) documents were produced and P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the State and Custodian R.W.1 was examined and Exts. B1 to B3 (b) were produced. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion and entered a finding that the Custodian and the State have complied with the requirements of Rule 2(a) of the Vesting Rules. It was found that the notification in respect of the petition schedule property was published in the Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 26.11.1982 and Janayugam daily dated 24.11.1982 as required under sub rule (3) of Rule 2A (2). It is also noticed that the area of 27.83 hectares comprised in survey number 1959 of Mannurkara Village was notified as private forests. The Tribunal found that the application was not filed within sixty days from 6.8.1981 or from the date of publication of the notification under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A of the Vesting Rules. Application was filed only on 14.8.1987. Consequently it was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The Tribunal on facts found that the property in question is private forests as defined in Section 2(f)(1) of the Vesting Act. It was also held that the applicant failed to establish the requirements of Section 3(2) or 3(3) of the Vesting Act for claiming exemption. Consequently Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The said order is under challenge before us. 3. Before we examine the rival contentions, we may refer to a few facts. Application schedule property is 27.786 hectares situated in survey No 1639 of Mannoorakara village of Nedumangad taluk. The property in question belonged to the erstwhile Government of Travancore, which demised the property to one Mr Multhunahyakam, retired High Court Judge for coffee or tea cultivation in consideration of the purchase money of the sum of British rupees 3914.11.10 on certain conditions. We may refer to some of the relevant conditions, which are as follows: Fifth: The full right to Royal trees within the grant is reserved and continues to vest in the Government. We may refer to some of the relevant conditions, which are as follows: Fifth: The full right to Royal trees within the grant is reserved and continues to vest in the Government. The Grantee shall be bound to deliver to the Government all ivory found and other royalties produced in the land, and all captured elephants, and will be paid the regulated price for the articles of produce and the regulated reward for the elephants, at the discretion of the Government. Seventh: No exclusive right of water beyond that is necessary for the use of the plantation shall be considered to be conveyed by the grant. All rights over all water power are reserved to and vest in the Government. Eighth: Should the Government have occasion to take up any portion of the land sold for the purpose of constructing roads, channels or other public works, due compensation shall be paid. Nineth: The Grantee shall, as a most important condition of the grant, always use his best eversions to prevent the produce of the grant, being exported, except on payment of the regulated duty at the busloms Houses, and to prevent smuggling of articles of Government monopoly and to prevent smuggling of articles of Government monopoly and to prevent criminals in general obtaining any kind of protection on the Estate. Tenth: The land granted shall be held in perpetuity as heritable or transferable property but every case of transfer of the grant by the Grantee shall be immediately made known to the Government, who shall have the right of apportioning the tax if a portion of the holding is transferred. Eleventh: All rights in mines, metals and minerals are reserved to and continue to rest in the Government. The discovery of all mines and treasures within the limits of the grant shall be immediately communicated to the Government. The disposal of treasure discovered in the land granted will be regulated by the Treasure Trove regulation, III of 1084. Eleventh: All rights in mines, metals and minerals are reserved to and continue to rest in the Government. The discovery of all mines and treasures within the limits of the grant shall be immediately communicated to the Government. The disposal of treasure discovered in the land granted will be regulated by the Treasure Trove regulation, III of 1084. Fourteenth: The Grantee shall on or before the last day of May every year, given notice to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction of all lands planted by the Grantee during the current Malabar year with cardamom or rubber or rubber and tea or any other produce liable to an enhanced assessment, and shall specify in every such notice the number of acres of land so planted and the place or places where the same are situate. Provided always that the Government shall be at liberty at any time to make any arrangement they may consider necessary to ascertain for themselves the correct extent of land so planted or liable to any of the hereinbefore mentioned taxes and that the expenses of such arrangement shall be borne by the Grantee. Provided further that if the grantee fail to give any such notice to the Tahsildar on or before the last day of May every year herein before required, the Grantee shall be liable to pay a prohibitory tax of five times the assessment leviable on such plantation from the last day on which such notice ought to have been given. etc.etc. The document was executed on 13.9.1932. On the death of Muthunayakam his rights devolved upon his wife and children. They later sold the property by Ext. A3 sale deed dated 11.2.1965 to Rev. Fr. Dr Peter Bernad Pereira, the President and Trustee of the Trivandrum Social Service Society. Applicant Society submitted after purchasing the land they had improved the land by putting boundary walls for the area demarcating it from other properties and since then it is in their possession and cultivation. According to them, land was principally cultivated with tea, cardamom etc. and land is not a private forest coming within the definition of private forest under the Vesting Act and consequently was not vested in the State. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State and Custodian. It is stated in the affidavit as follows: “The application is hopelessly time barred. and land is not a private forest coming within the definition of private forest under the Vesting Act and consequently was not vested in the State. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State and Custodian. It is stated in the affidavit as follows: “The application is hopelessly time barred. Section 8 of the Act of 26 of 1971, as amended, require filing of the application within sixty days from the date of notification or within sixty days from 6.8.1981 whichever is later. The land under dispute was a private forest by its location and nature and has vested in Government free from all encumbrances on the appointed day. It was not cultivated at the time of vesting. An extent of 27.832 hectares of property in survey No 1659 was surveyed and demarcated. This was done inconformity with Rule 2A of the K P F (V & A) Act. A notification dt. 11.10.1982 was published by the Custodian of Vested Forests to that effect. The notification was published in all offices stipulated in the above rules. The fact of having issued the notification was published in Kerala Kaumudi and Janayugam dated 26.11.1982 and 24.11.1982, two dailies having wide circulation in the area. Hence there was a proper and valid notification in respect of the disputed property and all required procedures were complied… The area under dispute is a pucca forest with natural growth of forest species of trees of natural origin. The tree growth belongs to the evergreen shoal type. The land now forms part of the Peppara Wild Life sanctuary and has evergreen forests as its boundaries on all sides. It is remote from habitations and unconnected by roads. The adjoining forests on the southern and south eastern boundaries have been taken by the Forest Department during 1969 for being constituted as Reserved Forests. The boundaries on other sides adjoint the Kottoor Reserved Forest…. The property claimed in the petition has never been brought under cultivation. The averment in the application that the disputed land was cultivated with cardamom and tea is denied by the respondents. The applicant may be put to strict proof of their claim of cultivation” 5. Counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri George Varghese Kannanthanam submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. The averment in the application that the disputed land was cultivated with cardamom and tea is denied by the respondents. The applicant may be put to strict proof of their claim of cultivation” 5. Counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri George Varghese Kannanthanam submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the various provisions including Rule (3) of the Vesting Rules and also Rule 2 (a) and other related provisions. Counsel also submitted that a Bench of this court in Jayadevan V. State if Kerala (1981 KLT 86) held that Rule 3 of the Private Forests Tribunal Rules is ultra vires void and beyond the power of the Government and consequently reliance placed on the said rule was not legal. Counsel also took us through the oral and documentary evidence and contended that the property in question is not private forest and that it is fully planted with tea and cardamom. It is also his contention that in any view of the matter the applicant is entitled to get exemption under Section 3 (2) or 3(3) of the Vesting Act. 6. We may at the outset examine the question as to whether application filed is barred by the law of limitation. Application was admittedly made under Section 8 of the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act. We may refer to the said Section for easy reference. 8. Settlement of disputes- (1) where any dispute arises as to whether – a) Any land is 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-section (1) shall be in such form as may be prescribed. (2) Any application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form as may be prescribed. (3) If the Tribunal decides that any land is not a private forest or that a private forest or portion thereof has not vested in the Government and – a) No appeal has been preferred against the decision of the Tribunal within the period specified therefore; or b) Such appeal having been preferred has been dismissed by the High Court, the custodian shall as soon as may be after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, after the date of the order of the High Court dismissing the appeal, restore position of such land or private forest or portion, as the case may be, to the person in possession thereof immediately before the appointed day. Rule 3 of the Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 deals with the presentation of application before the Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act. The said rule is extracted below for easy reference. “(1) An application under Section a shall be in Form A and shall be presented to the Tribunal with such number of additional copies of the application as are necessary to be served on the respondents within sixty 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. (2) The applicant shall, along with the application, file documents, if any relied on by him in support of his application, with sufficient number of true copies of the same, as are necessary, to be served on the respondents.” Rule 2A of the Vesting and Assignment Rules stipulates that demarcation of private forests in pursuance of section 6 of the Act shall be effected by erecting by Cairns along the boundaries. The said rule is extracted below for easy reference. 2A. Demarcation of boundaries – (1) Demarcation of private forests in pursuance of section 6 of the Act shall be effected by erecting by Cairns along the boundaries. The said rule is extracted below for easy reference. 2A. Demarcation of boundaries – (1) Demarcation of private forests in pursuance of section 6 of the Act shall be effected by erecting by Cairns along the boundaries. (2) A notification specifying the details of the private forest, the boundaries of which have been demarcated such as survey and sub division 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 of the Divisional Forest Office and the office of the Custodian. (3) 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. The abovementioned provisions would show that as per Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules application under Section 8 has to be filed within sixty days from 6.8.1981 or from the date of publication of the notification under sub-rule (2) of the rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules. Application schedule property was vested as forest as per notification dated 11.10.1982 and notification was published on 15.11.1982 and the fact of publication of the notification was also published in the Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 26.11.1982 and Janayugam daily dated 24.11.1982. Ext. B3 is a copy of the notification, which would indicate that the area comprised in survey number 1639 of Mannoorkkara village was notified as vested forest. The area shown in the petition is 68.63 acres in survey number 1659 tallies with the notification. Rule 2A (2) of the Vesting Rules provides that the notification specifying the details of the private forest, the boundaries etc. 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. Ext. B3 (a) is a copy of the publication of the notification. RW-1 in his oral evidence stated that publication was effected as per Rule 2A(2). Exts. B1 and B2 are the copies of news dailies dated 26.11.1982 and 24.11.1982. The above facts would indicate department has complied with the publication of the notification under sub-rule? (2) of Rule 2A of the Vesting Rules. RW-1 in his oral evidence stated that publication was effected as per Rule 2A(2). Exts. B1 and B2 are the copies of news dailies dated 26.11.1982 and 24.11.1982. The above facts would indicate department has complied with the publication of the notification under sub-rule? (2) of Rule 2A of the Vesting Rules. Therefore the application under Section 8 of the Act should have been filed either within sixty days from 6.8.1981 or within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification under sub rule (2) of Rule 2A of the Vesting Rules whichever is later. Admittedly application was filed only on 14.8.1987. We have already indicated publication of the notification was dated 11.10.1982 and it was published on 15.11.1982. Consequently application preferred by the applicant is hopelessly barred. We are therefore of the view Tribunal is justified in holding that application is hit by the law of limitation. 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant however took us through the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Jayadevan’s case, supra (1981 KLT 86). In that case Division Bench was dealing with the scope of Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules 1972 read with Section 8 of the Vesting Act. After considering all the aspects of the matter the Division Bench held that Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules is ultra vires and void. In that decision the Bench held as follows: “The dispute that is contemplated by S.8 before the Forest Tribunal is 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 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 authorized by the Act itself.” (emphasis supplied) We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench. Judgment was rendered on 21.101980. It is true, rights of the parties cannot be set at naught without any stipulation in the present Act. Subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench in Jayadevan’s case, legislature has amended the Act and the Rules by Act 20 of 1981, which came into force on 9.6.1981. Judgment was rendered on 21.101980. It is true, rights of the parties cannot be set at naught without any stipulation in the present Act. Subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench in Jayadevan’s case, legislature has amended the Act and the Rules by Act 20 of 1981, which came into force on 9.6.1981. Amended Section has already been extracted by us in the earlier part of the judgment. The following sentence “within such period as may be prescribed apply to the Tribunal” has been incorporated in the Act itself in Section 8 and corresponding additions have been made in Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules as well. Indisputably application was preferred in this case on 14.8.1987 after Section 8 was amended by Act 20 of 1981. Consequently Section 8 as it stood subsequent to the amendment Act is applicable in this case. Consequently decision cited by the counsel is of no assistance. 8. We may examine the question whether the application schedule property is private forest which ahs been vested in the State by virtue of the Vesting Act. Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1971 was enacted to provide for the vesting in the Government of the private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof. “Private forest” has been defined in the Act as follows: “(f) private forest means- (i) any land to which the Madras Presevation of Private Forests Act 1949 (Madras Act XXVII of 1949) applied immediately before the appointed day excluding – (A) lands, which are gardens or nilams as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963? (1 of 1964). (B) Lands which are used principally for the cultivation of tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, cardamom or cinnamom and lands used for any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of such crops or for the preparation of the same for the market. Explanation: Lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and playgrounds shall be deemed to be lands used for purposes ancillary to the cultivation of such crops. Explanation: Lands used for the construction of office buildings, godowns, factories, quarters for workmen, hospitals, schools and playgrounds shall be deemed to be lands used for purposes ancillary to the cultivation of such crops. (C) Lands, which are principally cultivated with cashew or other fruit bearing trees or are principally cultivated with any other agricultural crop and (D) Sites of buildings and lands appurtenant to and necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of, such buildings; (ii) any forest not owned by the Government, to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act 1949 did not apply, including waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas. (2) in relation to the remaining areas in the State of Kerala any forest not owned by the Government including waste lands which are enclaves within wooded areas. Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, a land shall be deemed to be a waste land notwithstanding the existence thereon of scattered trees or shrubs; Essential difference between clause (i) of Section 2(f) and clause (ii) of Section 2(f) lies on the location of the area. Section 2(f) (i) relates to area of land to which M.P.P.F Act applies and also deals with private forest. Clause (ii) of Section 2(F) deals with any forest not owned by the Government. If it is owned by the Government there cannot be any difficulty because it is already vested in the State, but it is a forest not owned by the Government the same would fall under sub clause (ii) of Section 2(f). In Mathai Joseph V. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT sh. Notes page 32) a Bench of this court examined the scope of clause (ii) of Section 2(f) and held that the land covered by the said clause must be forest not owned by the Government. 9. We may examine the question whether the applicant schedule property is a forest. Facts would reveal that the land in question was given in perpetuity by the Government of Travancore in the year 1932 to one Muthunayakam. Subsequently it devolved on his wife and children from whom applicant purchased the property in the year 1965. We have already narrated some of the important terms of the document of the year 1932 in the earlier part of the judgment. All the royal trees are reserved with the State. Subsequently it devolved on his wife and children from whom applicant purchased the property in the year 1965. We have already narrated some of the important terms of the document of the year 1932 in the earlier part of the judgment. All the royal trees are reserved with the State. Elephant if any found in the area was also to be handed over to the State on certain conditions. Various other relevant clauses were also incorporated in the said document. Facts of this case would reveal that the land in question was forest and continued to be forest. Facts would indicate that the land in question forms part of Peppara wild Life sanctuary and has evergreen forests as its boundaries on all sides and adjacent forests as its boundaries on all sides and adjacent forests on the southern side and south eastern side have been taken by the Forest Department during 1969 for being constituted as reserve forest. Boundaries on the other sides adjoin the Kottoor reserve forest. R.W.1 was examined in support of the stand of the State. Though he took charge only in the year 1990 he has stated that application schedule property forms part of forest and part of Peppara Wild Life sanctuary. Ext B3 (b) plan would also show that it forms part of reserve forest. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would also support this fact and they categorically stated that the properties are not accessible and they themselves found it difficult to reach the property. The land was found to be in an abandoned stage by the applicants themselves. There is a categorical admission by P.W.1 itself in the cross examination that all sides of the property are surrounded by forest. In order to show otherwise, no commission was taken out by the applicants. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and also on the basis of the notification issued by the Government, we are of the view land in question is a forest within the definition of Section 2 (f) (ii) of the Vesting Act and has vested in the State. 10. We will now consider the question whether the applicant is entitled to get exemption under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting Act. 10. We will now consider the question whether the applicant is entitled to get exemption under Section 3 (3) of the Vesting Act. In order to claim exemption under Section 3(3) of the Vesting Act, applicant has to prove that he is holding the property under a valid registered document of title as on 10.5.1971 when Act 26/1971 came into force. Applicant has to prove that he was holding the property with the intention to cultivate and further to prove that the property along with other properties in his possession shall not exceed the ceiling limit as prescribed in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. We may now examine whether all those conditions have been satisfied in this case. We fully endorse the view of the Tribunal that the applicant has valid title to the property. We may examine whether applicant has established the other two conditions for claiming exemption under Section 3(3) of the Vesting Act. Applicant has to show that he had the intention to cultivate the property as on the coming into force of Act 26 of 1971. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 itself would indicate that the land is not principally planted with any cultivation like tea or cardamom. Mere fact that some trees were interspersed would not make that the application schedule property a planted area. Intention to cultivate the area must be discernible from the conduct of the parties. Evidence of P.W.2 would indicate that the area in question was inaccessible. There is no independent evidence to show that the applicant has effected any cultivation on the property in question at least from 1965 onwards. If he had done preparation to cultivate the property, he would have taken out a commission and established the same. Apart from the interested testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2 no document or other independent evidence was adduced. On the other hand evidence would indicate that the property remained as it is for the last many years. Mere fact that some trees were found here and there, as we have already indicated, would not establish the intention to cultivation. R.W 1 specifically stated that tea and cardamom were not cultivated in the property but there were wild tree growth in the property. No commission was taken out by the applicant to establish that the trees were even planted by the applicant. R.W 1 specifically stated that tea and cardamom were not cultivated in the property but there were wild tree growth in the property. No commission was taken out by the applicant to establish that the trees were even planted by the applicant. Further alleged plants stated to have seen is only in some area of five acres or six acres in an extent of 68 acres. Documents, which have been produced to show that applicant, had done agricultural operations and paid tax etc. are all subsequent to the appointed day and of no relevance. Exts. A7 to A12 documents are of the years 1981 and 1982. In the absence of any reliable evidence, we are inclined to concur with the view of the Tribunal that the applicant had not succeeded in establishing that he had the intention to cultivate the property as on 10.5.1971. 11. Applicant has to further prove to get exemption under Section 3 (3) that he was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling area as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was contended that the applicant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are not applicable to him. Section 81(t) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act states that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to lands owned or held by a University established by law; or a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature or a public trust. Applicant being a religious institution ceiling provisions are not applicable. Ext. A1 byelaw produced by the applicant show that the society was registered only on 26.6.1985 long after the coming into force of the Vesting Act. Therefore, there is no question of application of Section 81(t) to the instant case. Applicant could not establish that the society was registered under the Charitable Societies Registration Act when the Vesting Act came into force. Consequently applicant would come under Section 82(1)(d) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Further, in order to prove that he has no land within the ceiling area, applicant has to furnish certificate under Rule 4 of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974. Consequently applicant would come under Section 82(1)(d) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Further, in order to prove that he has no land within the ceiling area, applicant has to furnish certificate under Rule 4 of the Kerala Private Forests (Exemption from Vesting) Rules, 1974. Rule 4 says that if an owner claims exemption under rule 3 in respect of any land and he has no other and in the taluk in which the land in respect of which he claims exemption is situate, shall along with the application referred to in that rule also produce a certificate in Form No 2 from the Tahsildar of the Taluk to the effect that he does not hold any other land in the taluk. No such certificate or other reliable evidence has been produced by the applicant. Consequently the conditions to be satisfied for claiming exemption were not satisfied by the applicant. In such circumstances, we are of the view the applicant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for. We therefore confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss this appeal.