Judgment :- Koshy, J. This appeal is filed by the State under section 8-A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act No.26 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the decision of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. Possession of a small rubber plantation owned by the first respondent/applicant was objected to by the forest officials. Then, he filed an application under section 8 of the Act for declaring that the petition schedule property is not a private forest vested with the government. The Forest tribunal found that the above property is not vested which the Government and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act. The extent of the property involved is only 1 acre 22 cents. At the time when the application was filed, the land was a pucca rubber estate. The Act itself was intended to promote agriculture and distribute the excess land to landless poor people. Statement of objects and reasons was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 27-7-1971. It is as follows: “There are vast extents of private forests in the State, particularly in the Malabar area where such forests are owned by jenmies. These private forests are agricultural lands. In the judgment reported in 1969 KLT 320 (V. Venugopala Varma Raja vs. controller of Estate Duty, Kerala). A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as the land being entirely rocky and barren for other reasons, all forest lands in the State are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes. 2. Private forests as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), are exempt from the provisions relating to ceiling on ownership and possession of lands in that Act. There is scarcity of land in the State. The density of population in the State is also very high. The surplus lands which may be available by the implementation of the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) and the lands already in the possession of the Government and available for assignment may not be sufficient to meet the demand for land from the agricultural labourers. The surplus lands which may be available by the implementation of the ceiling provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964) and the lands already in the possession of the Government and available for assignment may not be sufficient to meet the demand for land from the agricultural labourers. It may also be against the directive principles of State policy to allow a few persons to be in ownership and control of these agricultural lands. Therefore, Government consider that such lands should be taken over as a part of the agrarian reforms in the State and utilized for distribution to agricultural labourers, for the promotion of agriculture and for the welfare of the agricultural population in the State. 3. Since the Legislative Assembly was not in session, the above object was sought to be achieved by promulgating the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Ordinance, 1971 (14 of 1971). The Bill seeks to replace the Ordinance by an Act of the Legislature.” Opening paragraphs of the Act are quoted below. “An Act to provide for the vesting in the Government of private forests in the State of Kerala and for the assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. Preamble:- Whereas the private forests in the State of Kerala are agricultural lands: And whereas Government consider that such agricultural and should be so utilized as to increase the agricultural production in the State and to promote the welfare of the agricultural population in the State; And whereas Government also consider that to give effect to the above objectives it is necessary that the Private forests should vest in the Government; Be it enacted in the Twenty second year of the Republic of India as follows:” 2. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows: “10. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows: “10. Assignment of private forests:- (1) The Government shall, after reserving such extent of the private forests vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 or of the lands comprised in such private forests as may be necessary for purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the agricultural population or for purposes ancillary thereto, assign on registry or lease to— (a) agriculturists; (b) agricultural labourers; (c) members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are willing to take up agricultural as means of their livelihood; (d) unemployed young persons belonging to families of agriculturists and agricultural labourers, who have no sufficient means of livelihood and who are willing to take up agriculture as means of their livelihood; (e) labourers belonging to families of agriculturists and agricultural labourers, whose principal means of livelihood before the appointed day was the income they obtained as wages for work in connection with or related to private forests and who are willing to take up agriculture as means of their livelihood. the remaining private forests or the lands comprised in the private forests on such terms and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. (2) The Government may, by notification in sub-section (1) to any officer of the Government or any class of officers of Government, subject to such restrictions and control as may be specified in the notification. (3) The extent of private forests or lands comprised in private forests which may be assigned to each of the categories of persons specified in sub-section (1) and the order of preference in which assignment may be made shall be such as may be prescribed.” Then the State took over the land without payment of compensation, the Act was upheld to be constitutionally valid as an agrarian reform in view of article 31 A of the Constitution of India as held in State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. (1973 KLT 896) and Bagwathi Tea Estates Ltd. v. Government of India (1995 (1) KLT 612). 3. The contention of the Government is that the property in question deemed to be a private forest as it was covered by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. Ltd. (1973 KLT 896) and Bagwathi Tea Estates Ltd. v. Government of India (1995 (1) KLT 612). 3. The contention of the Government is that the property in question deemed to be a private forest as it was covered by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The applicant had a case that even the lands covered under MPPF Act will not become private forest if it is a garden land as defined under the Kerala Land Reforms Act or a plantation and applicant’s land was recognised as a paramba. But, the major contention raised was that assuming that it is a land covered under the MPPF Act and it is a private forest, applicant is entitled to get exemption under section 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Act. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for vesting of private forests in the State of Kerala as on the appointed day, that is 10th May, 1971. Section 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Act are as follows: “3. Private forests to vest in Government:- xx xx xx xx (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (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. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section “cultivation” includes cultivation of trees or plants of any specifies. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (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 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 are applicable to him under section 82 of the said Act.” 4. To get exemption under section 3(2) of the Act, the following ingredients should be proved: (i) That the party should be the owner of the property; (ii) That the property should have been cultivated; and (iii) That he should be within the ceiling area. To get exemption under section 3(2) of the Act, the following ingredients should be proved: (i) That the party should be the owner of the property; (ii) That the property should have been cultivated; and (iii) That he should be within the ceiling area. Under Section 3(3) of the Act, the conditions to be proved are as follows: i) That the party should be holding the property under a valid document of title executed prior to the appointed day. ii) The property should be held with intention to cultivate; and iii) The party should be within the ceiling area. The forest Tribunal found that the applicant is entitled to get the benefit under both the sections. 5. Now, we will come to the facts of this case. The property in question was the subject-matter of a suit O.S.56 of 1947. The above suit was one for partition. As per the final decree proceedings, the property was sold in court auction. The purchaser of the property in the court auction sold the property under Ext.A1 deed. The purchaser of the property under Ext.A1 executed a Will, Ext.A2, which was probated by Ext.A3 probate proceedings. The legatee under the Will sold the property by Exts.A4 and A5 deeds and they sold the property to the applicant under Exts.A6 and A7 deeds. The property was not considered as a private forest by the revenue authorities. It was included in the ceiling proceedings by the Taluk Land Board in the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant as can be borne out by Ext.A8. This property was retained by the party and another extent of 13.89 acres were surrendered. The intention to cultivate the property much before the appointed day can be seen by Ext.A9 notice of the Rubber Board dated 25-8-1966, Ext.A10 letter from the Rubber Board dated 15-9-1966 and Ext.A11 agreement with the rubber Board dated 13-10-1966. The cultivation is established by Ext.A22 to A24 agreements dated 16-6-1967, 7-4-1969 and 28-3-1970. 6. By Ext.C1 commission report, the commissioner had taken the nature of the property. In the adjoining property there is a house bearing No.1/187 of Vandazhi Panchayat. On the western side of the property there is a rubber estate belonging to another person. The tribunal considered these documents and found that the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant sold the property under a document of title executed prior to the appointed day. In the adjoining property there is a house bearing No.1/187 of Vandazhi Panchayat. On the western side of the property there is a rubber estate belonging to another person. The tribunal considered these documents and found that the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant sold the property under a document of title executed prior to the appointed day. Ext.A19 possession certificate shows that the property is in the possession of the applicant. Cultivation prior to the appointed day is proved by Exts.A22 to A24 and subsequent cultivation can be seen from Ext.A18 proceedings of the Rubber Board dated 16-6-1987. There is no case for the Government that the applicant has property beyond the ceiling area. Applicant is a small holder and he himself is an agriculturist. There is no need to take the land from the applicant to give it to another agriculturist. It is an admitted fact that this small extent at present is fully planted by rubber. Earlier, this property was included in the Taluk Land Board’s proceedings treating it as an agricultural land and not as a private forest. The proceedings of the land Board, though not conclusive, is admissible as a piece of evidence and due weightage is to be given as held by the Supreme Court in Kunjanam Antony v. State of Kerala and another ((2003) 3 SCC 221). It is the burden of the party disputing the same to show that it is not admissible. There is no case for the applicant that the above proceedings of the Land Board was a result of the fraudulent action. If it was a private forest, it would not have been included in the ceiling area and the erstwhile landlord should not have surrendered the land. State which is represented by various departments can only speak with one voice as held by the Apex Court in M/s. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2005 AIR SCW 3668) and Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi ((2002) 9 SCC 1). Departments cannot argue against each other whether it is revenue department or forest department. Taking into consideration the totality of evidence adduced in this case, the Forest Tribunal found that the land in question is not vested in the Government in view of section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act. Departments cannot argue against each other whether it is revenue department or forest department. Taking into consideration the totality of evidence adduced in this case, the Forest Tribunal found that the land in question is not vested in the Government in view of section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act. We fully agree with the findings of fact and the legal conclusion made by the Forest Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed.