Judgment Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2010 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, who shall be hereinafter referred to as petitioner, praying for quashing of Ext.P11 by which the petitioner was informed that land in question being notified as vested forest as per notification dated 25.11.1982, the application for survey and demarcation cannot be entertained. Brief facts giving rise to the writ appeal are as follows. 2. Petitioner's father, late Sri.George Ninan, owned lands in Kulathupuzha Village in Kollam District which he claimed by virtue of release deed No.5099/1966 of Punalur Sub Registry. It was claimed that land to an extent of 57 acres in Survey No.925/2/1 was exempted by Taluk Land Board which is in the name of petitioner as per the revenue records and he is in possession and enjoyment. The notification dated 25.11.1982 was issued notifying that private forests, as detailed in the list attached, have been demarcated and surveyed. The notification is published as required under Sub-rule 2A of Kerala Private Forest(Vesting and Assignment Rules), 1974 declaring an extent of 45.0777 Hectares in Survey No.925/1 and 30.7035 Hectares in Survey No.925/2 as vested forests. Petitioner's father filed O.A. No.26/1983 before Forest Tribunal, Palakkad challenging the aforesaid notification declaring the two plots as vesting in the State. It was claimed that part of the area notified is not liable to be vested since it is a plantation as held by Taluk Land Board. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. 3. Against the order passed by the Forest Tribunal in O.A. No.26/1983, the State filed appeal before the High Court being MFA No.510/1986. High Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plots notified and to submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the spot in the presence of both the parties and submitted a report. The Advocate Commissioner reported that Survey No.925/2 part shown in the notification dated 25.11.1982 stands for sub division Survey No.925/2/1 is indicative of species found in Ever Green Forest. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 30.03.1987 allowed MFA No.510/1986 and set aside the order of Forest Tribunal. The Advocate Commissioner reported that Survey No.925/2 part shown in the notification dated 25.11.1982 stands for sub division Survey No.925/2/1 is indicative of species found in Ever Green Forest. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 30.03.1987 allowed MFA No.510/1986 and set aside the order of Forest Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court relied on relevant materials on record, including the Advocate Commissioner's report, held that Survey No.925/1 as well as Survey No.925/2/1 is not a planted area and O.A. filed by the petitioner's father before the Forest Tribunal was dismissed. 4. The petitioner's father submitted a petition before Hon'ble Minister for Forest on 25.06.1987 staking a claim over 57 acres of land in survey No.925/2/1. The State Government informed the petitioner's father by letter dated 14.09.1988 that the land referred to in the petition was also part of vested forest in Government's possession. Petitioner filed a writ petition, O.P. No.24496 of 2001 in this Court praying for a direction to respondents to survey and demarcate the land claimed by the petitioner. O.P. No.24496/2001 was dismissed and withdrawn by order dated 12.06.2006. The petitioner, thereafter approached the Taluk authorities for demarcation of land. Taluk authorities requested the presence of Forest authorities for survey of land. By letter dated 17.10.2006, Forest authorities informed the Taluk authorities that land on which survey is sought to be claimed is vested forest and there is no need of survey and demarcation of said land. It was further stated that land for which survey is sought to be claimed has already been notified by notification dated 25.11.1982 which is thickly grown by forest trees and completely under control of Forest Department. Petitioner thereafter filed the writ petition, W.P.(C) No.32191 of 2006 praying for the following reliefs: "a) call for the records relating to Ext.P11; b) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P11 as well as the letter No.SWLD G.1/991/2001 dated 17.10.2006 of the 3rd respondent mentioned therein. c) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3, 4 and 5 to complete the survey of 57 acres in survey No.925/2/1 of Kolatupuzha village initiated pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 and furnish the survey plan to the petitioner for which the petitioner has already remitted the cost. c) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3, 4 and 5 to complete the survey of 57 acres in survey No.925/2/1 of Kolatupuzha village initiated pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 and furnish the survey plan to the petitioner for which the petitioner has already remitted the cost. d) declare that no part of survey No.925/2/1 of Kolathupuzha Village has been demarcated or surveyed or notified under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. e) issue a writ in the nature of an injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 and their subordinates from interfering in any manner with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 57 acres in Survey No.925/2/1 of Kolathupuzha village. f) issue such other order or direction including interim orders as that are necessary in the circumstances of the case; and g) allow this Writ Petition with costs." 5. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned judgment, has allowed the writ petition quashing Ext.P11 i.e. letter dated 28.10.2006 and 5th respondent was directed to proceed with survey and complete the same. Respondents 2 to 4 were directed to extend necessary help to the 5th respondent. The State filed this appeal against the said judgment. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. P. Madavankutty appearing for the appellants, in support of the Writ Appeal, submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been dismissed on the ground that similar writ petition filed by the petitioner, vide O.P. No.24496 of 2001, was dismissed and withdrawn without obtaining any liberty from this Court for filing another writ petition, hence the writ petition was not entertainable. It is further submitted that claiming right over the land in dispute petitioner's father had already filed O.A. No.26 of 1983 before the Forest Tribunal which though was initially allowed, but on appeal by State in MFA No.510/1986, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Forest Tribunal holding that petitioner's father had no right in the land in dispute. It is submitted that Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No.510/1986 operates as res judicata and petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same issue under the guise of directing the respondents to carry on survey and demarcate the land. It is submitted that Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No.510/1986 operates as res judicata and petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same issue under the guise of directing the respondents to carry on survey and demarcate the land. It is submitted that learned Single Judge committed error in directing for survey without adverting to the rights of the petitioner over the land. By virtue of Section 3 of Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 all private forests are statutorily vested in the State with effect from 10.05.1971. The dispute as to whether any portion of land belonging to the petitioner's father is a private forest or not has already been decided by the Division Bench judgment in MFA No.510/1986. Petitioner as such has no right. Learned Single Judge ignored the effect of Division Bench judgment of this Court which was binding on the parties. 7. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that though as per the revenue records, the petitioner is paying tax it does not confer any right or title on the petitioner and the learned Single Judge had unduly laid stress on the aforesaid entries which did not confer any title on the petitioner. No documents of title were produced by the petitioner and without there being any material to prove title of petitioner over the land in dispute, the Writ Petition was allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner refuting the submission of learned Government Pleader submitted that no error has been committed by learned Single Judge in directing for measurement and survey. It is submitted that withdrawal of the writ petition, being O.P. No.24496 of 2001, was inconsequential, since for the writ petition which gave rise to this writ appeal, there was a new cause of action. It is submitted that withdrawal of the writ petition thus was not a Bar in entertaining the claim of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32191 of 2006. It is submitted that 57 acres of land in Survey No.525/2/1 has been shown in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner, for which petitioner had also deposited tax for which he has filed Ext.P1 receipt dated 27.02.1988. Letter dated 10.09.1987 was also filed by petitioner by which the Custodian and Conservator of Forests informed the petitioner's father that Survey No.525/2/1 has not been taken over. Letter dated 10.09.1987 was also filed by petitioner by which the Custodian and Conservator of Forests informed the petitioner's father that Survey No.525/2/1 has not been taken over. He further submitted that Additional Tahsildar has rightly proceeded with the survey and demarcation of the land which was unduly interfered with by letter dated 17.10.2006 of Wild Life Warden. The petitioner is not claiming any right over the land which were notified by notification dated 25.11.1982 and 57 acres of land claimed by the petitioner is different from the vested forest. Learned Single Judge has rightly directed for survey and measurement. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The first issue to be considered is as to whether by withdrawal of the writ petition, O.P. No.24496/2001, without obtaining liberty, petitioner's W.P.(C) No.32191 of 2006 is maintainable or not. 10. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others v. Vikram Cement and others [ 2008 (14) SCC 58 ]. The Apex Court in the said judgment has laid down in paragraph 61 as follows: "61. From the above case law, it is clear that it is open to the petitioner to withdraw a petition filed by him. Normally, a court of law would not prevent him from withdrawing his petition. But if such withdrawal is without the leave of the court, it would mean that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting or continuing the proceedings and he abandons his claim. In such cases, obviously, public policy requires that he should not start a fresh round of litigation and the court will not allow him to reagitate the claim which he himself had given up earlier." 11. The reliefs claimed in the earlier writ petition (O.P. No.24496/2001) by the petitioner were the following: "i) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct a survey of the lands in question and demarcate the forest lands as already been declared by this Hon'ble Court and permit the other lands to be enjoyed by the petitioner peacefully without any hindrance from whichever quarters. ii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 12. ii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 12. In the present writ petition, apart from claiming direction to survey plot No.925/2/1, petitioner had also prayed to quash letter dated 17.10.2006(Ext.P11). The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12.06.2006. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above submission in detail. Learned Single Judge in the judgment has taken the view that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner on a distinct cause of action. It has been observed by learned Single Judge that when steps were initially taken for conducting survey and demarcating the land, it was objected to by letter dated 17.10.2006, by which a fresh cause of action arose to the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition of law as laid down in Ramesh Chandra Sankla's case(supra). But looking to the facts and sequence of events in the present case we are not inclined to non-suit the petitioner only on the ground that earlier petition, i.e. O.P. No.24496 of 2001 was withdrawn by him without obtaining a liberty from the Court for filing fresh writ petition. It is true that after withdrawing the writ petition, the petitioner was precluded from filing any other writ petition on the same cause of action, but in the event of certain subsequent development including the decision refusing to carry on survey which were initiated by revenue authorities, petitioner could have agitated the issue. Thus, instead of non-suiting the petitioner on this ground, we are inclined to examine the issues raised in the writ appeal on merits. 13. The notification dated 25.11.1982 is a notification referable to sub Rule 2A of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 which reads as follows: "It is hereby notified for the information of the public that the following private forests (as per the details shown in the list attached) in Quilon District vested with Government as per Vesting & Assignment Act, 1971 have been demarcated and surveyed. The publication of this notification is made as required under sub-rule 2A of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 as per Government Notification No.82055/FS/2-1/76/AD dated 11.01.1977 and No.82055/FS/2-2-76 dated 11.01.1977 and published in Kerala Gazette No.4 dated 25.01.1977. The publication of this notification is made as required under sub-rule 2A of Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 as per Government Notification No.82055/FS/2-1/76/AD dated 11.01.1977 and No.82055/FS/2-2-76 dated 11.01.1977 and published in Kerala Gazette No.4 dated 25.01.1977. List of vested forest demarcated and surveyed in Thenmala Forest Division. “TABLE” Sd/- Custodian & Conservator of Forests (Vested), Kozhikode" 14. The Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 came into force with effect from 10.05.1971 under Section 3 of the Act all Private forests stand vested in the State Government. Section 3 of the Act for ready reference reads as follows: "3. Private forests to 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 forest shall stand extinguished. (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 purposes of this sub-section, "cultivation" includes cultivation of trees or plants of any species. (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) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, private forests shall, for the purposes of sub- section(2) or sub-section(3), be deemed to be lands to which Chapter III of the said Act is applicable and of the purposes of calculating the ceiling limit applicable to an owner, private forests shall be deemed to be "other dry lands" specified in Schedule II to the said Act." 15. Looking to the Scheme of the Act it is clear that vesting of private forests in the State was not dependent on any further notification. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine the scheme of 1971 Act in Ranga Sesha Hills (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 1991(2) KLT 49 ]. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment are relevant which are quoted below: "6. By virtue of sub-section (1) 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. 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. 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. 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." 16. The Apex Court had also an occasion to consider the effect of Section 3 of 1971 Act in State of Kerala v. Popular Estates [ 2004(12) SCC 434 ]. The Apex Court had also laid down that on enforcement of 1971 Act, all private forests would vest in the State Government. The Apex Court had also an occasion to consider the effect of Section 3 of 1971 Act in State of Kerala v. Popular Estates [ 2004(12) SCC 434 ]. The Apex Court had also laid down that on enforcement of 1971 Act, all private forests would vest in the State Government. It was held that demarcation of forests under Section 6 of the Act is merely a consequential act and vesting is not postponed depending on the said act and if anyone claims that his land had not vested in the State Government, Section 8 of the Act gives remedy of moving the Forest Tribunal. Paragraph 12 is relevant which reads as under: "12. Learned counsel for the respondents produced before us copies of registered deeds and contended that these formed the title deeds by which the respondents' predecessor in title had purchased the land, way back, in the year 1963. He attempted to support the reasoning of the High Court in its judgment that there was an admission on the part of the State Government and its officers that only 155.90 acres was forest. We are unable to accept these contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents. The scheme of the Act is that upon the Act coming into force, all private forests would vest in the State Government. The demarcation of the forests under S.6 of the Act is merely a consequential act and the vesting is not postponed depending on the said act. If anyone claims that his land had not vested in the State Government, S.8 of the Act gives remedy of moving the Forest Tribunal with full details. The Forest Tribunal would then adjudicate the dispute and decide as to how much of the land claimed by the applicant was not vested forest. It is only upon such determination that the State would be divested of the vested forest. In the instant case, the burden of establishing that certain disputed land was not vested forest rested squarely upon the respondents before the Forest Tribunal. The respondents would succeed or fail on the merits of their own case of showing that the land fell within the exempted category." 17. In the present case after vesting of private forests in the State and after survey and demarcation of the said private forest, a notification dated 25.11.1982 was issued. The respondents would succeed or fail on the merits of their own case of showing that the land fell within the exempted category." 17. In the present case after vesting of private forests in the State and after survey and demarcation of the said private forest, a notification dated 25.11.1982 was issued. Petitioner's father raised a dispute by filing an O.A. before the Forest Tribunal. The claim was initially allowed but subsequently on appeal by the State, the said order of the Forest Tribunal was set aside and the claim of the petitioner's father was dismissed. 18. From the pleadings on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties it is clear that the petitioner tried to built up a case that in Survey No.925/2/1 there is 57 acres of land of petitioner which should be demarcated on which petitioner's name continues to be recorded in the revenue records. The claim was laid by the petitioner in the writ petition contending that the said 57 acres of land is separate and distinct from the private forest which is vested in the State notified by the notification dated 25.11.1982. Thus, one of the main issue, which has to be considered in the writ petition, was to check whether 57 acres of land claimed by the petitioner is distinct and separate from the private forest as notified by notification dated 25.11.1982. In so far as the area which is included in the notification dated 25.11.1982, i.e. Survey No.925/1 part and 925/2 part, the claim of the petitioner's father has already been rejected up to the High Court by Division Bench in MFA No.510/1986. On account of petitioner's claim in MFA No.510/1986, the High Court directed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner who inspected the disputed land and submitted a detailed report. The Advocate Commissioner's report is on the record which was relied on by the Division Bench. It is useful to quote certain relevant parts of the Commissioner's report which was filed as Annexure R3(g) by the State in the Writ Petition, i.e. paragraphs 9 and 10, which read as under: "9. xx xx xx xx After completing the sample enumeration of bits in S.No.925/1, I proceeded to-rather descended to the plot bearing Sy.No.925/2/1 taken in by plan II submitted by me. xx xx xx xx After completing the sample enumeration of bits in S.No.925/1, I proceeded to-rather descended to the plot bearing Sy.No.925/2/1 taken in by plan II submitted by me. Either side did not dispute its identity or that it was a sub-division of original S.No.925/2 though S.No.925/2/1 is not noted there. There is no difficulty either if you go by Survey records without bringing in the names of estates or portions thereof, given by the parties from time to time. But by bit enumeration is given separately. 10. On 22.01.1987, at 2 p.m., the respondent's counsel handed over a representation to me to make sure (i) whether any portion of S.No.925/2/1 was taken possession as per notification and whether it is valid in view of the notification; (ii) the services of coffee board officials from Kalpatta, Kozhikode or Kottayam might be sought to ascertain the age, quality and nature of the stumps. For want of time I could not concede to the later request, the local inspection having been fixed on 24.01.1987 at 8 a.m. I have no regrets also now, since the Coffee plants traced are so few and as between the forest officials and Sri. Yasodharan there was consensus on all those matters. Sri. Yasodharan is a very competent retired Divisional Forest Officer and know the job. As regards first difficulty posed, I need only say just now, that the respondent did not pursue the matter at the time of inspection and I feel no doubt that S.No.925/2 part shown in the notification stands sub-division S.No.925/2/1, though the maps may not have been made up to date in this regard incorporating this sub-division. " 19. Before the Advocate Commissioner the petitioner and the representatives of petitioner's father claimed that the disputed area is a planted area which is to be exempted from vested forest. Advocate Commissioner have noted certain objections and pointed out that certain coffee trees are there in the area. Advocate Commissioner, after inspecting the area and referring to various places, had opined that the nature of the entire area is 'Ever Green Forest'. The contention of the petitioner was noted by the Division Bench regarding the claim of planted area being survey No.925/2/1. The claim was rejected by the Division Bench after considering all submissions pertaining to Survey No.925/2/1. Advocate Commissioner, after inspecting the area and referring to various places, had opined that the nature of the entire area is 'Ever Green Forest'. The contention of the petitioner was noted by the Division Bench regarding the claim of planted area being survey No.925/2/1. The claim was rejected by the Division Bench after considering all submissions pertaining to Survey No.925/2/1. It is useful to quote paragraph 5 of the judgment which is to the following effect: "5. The total extent in Survey No.925/1 and 925/2 is 187.18 acres. P.W.1 deposed that the disputed property was fully planted with coffee. He added that even now coffee plants are in existence. The disputed property is admittedly on the southern side of the upper Elderslic Estate. According to P.W.1 99 and odd acres of land was surrendered by him to the State as vested forest during 1972-73. It is the definite case of R.W.1 that there is no plantation in the disputed property and that it has vested in the State. A Commissioner was deputed by this Court to ascertain the number and probable age of the coffee and tea plants per acre in the property and also details about the trees. When the commissioner visited the property the Divisional Surveyor, Thenmala, was present with attested copies of Field Measurement Registers of plots bearing Sy.Nos.925/1 and 925/2(part) of Kulathupuzha Village. The Commissioner found lavish growth of several species of trees. The Divisional Forest Officer who was present pointed out to the Commissioner several trees and stumps of trees. Since it was not possible to inspect and enumerate the entire area within a reasonable time, the commissioner as agreed to by both sides made sample enumeration of 5 bits in Sy.No.925/1 and Sy.No.925/2. He also took meticulous care to note the existence of any coffee plant or tea plant in the property. The Commissioner reported that the nature of the trees and plant growth in Sy.Nos.925/1 and 925/2/1 is indicative of species found in ever-green forests. Property in Survey No.925/1 is bounded on three sides by forests and property in Survey No.925/2/1 is bounded on two sides by ever green forests. Commissioner could see few coffee plants in the 5 bits inspected by him. He did not see any tea bushes. It is stated that there are 16 coffee plants per acre in bit No.1 of Sy.No.925/1 and 12 per acre in bit Nos. Commissioner could see few coffee plants in the 5 bits inspected by him. He did not see any tea bushes. It is stated that there are 16 coffee plants per acre in bit No.1 of Sy.No.925/1 and 12 per acre in bit Nos. I and II of Sy.No.925/2/1. Commissioner did not see any coffee plants in Bits II and III of Sy.No.925/1. Thus the report of the Commissioner would go a long way to show that the property is not a plantation. Though detailed objection was filed to the commission report by the petitioner nothing has been brought out to show that it suffers from any infirmity. The very existence of large number of trees would show that it is a wooded area and not planted as alleged by the petitioner." 20. The Division Bench had relied on the Advocate Commissioner's report as noted above and rejected the claim of petitioner on Survey Nos.925/1 and 925/2/1. Petitioner is claiming demarcation of 57 acres of land in plot No.925/2/1. The Division Bench, in earlier judgment being MFA No.510/1986, had already held that Survey No.925/2/1 is not a planted area and is a vested forest containing species which are present in the Ever Green Forest. The said area, having been treated as private forest, stand vested in the State. When the petitioner's claim for survey, for the purpose of separating and demarcating 57 acres of land included in survey No.925/2/1, having found to be private forest vested in the State, there was no occasion to direct for any survey or demarcation. Petitioner having failed to establish any right in plot No.925/2/1, the learned Single Judge committed error in directing for survey and measurement. The Division Bench, in MFA No.510/1986, had completely decided the issues between the parties and the said judgment operates res judicata regarding the claim of petitioner with regard to survey of lands in Survey Nos.925/1 and 925/2/1. It has been clearly noted by Advocate Commissioner that Survey No.925/2/1 is the same survey number which was included in the notification dated 25.11.1982 as Sy.No.925/2 part. The learned Single Judge did not advert to the true effect and consequence of the Division Bench judgment in MFA No.510/1986 and the issue which has already been closed between the parties has been reopened by directing survey and measurement. The learned Single Judge did not advert to the true effect and consequence of the Division Bench judgment in MFA No.510/1986 and the issue which has already been closed between the parties has been reopened by directing survey and measurement. We thus find sufficient force in the submission of learned Government Pleader for the appellants that judgment of Division Bench in MFA No.510/1986 has binding effect between the parties and operates as res judicata. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the tax receipt and revenue entries where he says that his name was recorded in Survey No.925/2/1 on 57 acres of land. It is well settled that entry in the revenue records does not confer any right or title on a person whose name appears in the records. The Apex Court in Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and others [ 2007(6) SCC 186 ] considered the above issue. Paragraph 9 reads as under: "9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Art.136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1653 : 1993 KHC 989: 1993(4) SCC 403 ). As already noted earlier, Civil Proceedings in regard to genuineness of Will are pending with High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition." 22. The case of the petitioner had been that on the 57 acres of land was released by Taluk Land Board. There were ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is to be noted that as the Taluk Land Board determination can neither control the vesting of private forest under 1971 Act, nor it shall operate as res judicata which preposition has been laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala V. Popular Estate (supra). There were ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is to be noted that as the Taluk Land Board determination can neither control the vesting of private forest under 1971 Act, nor it shall operate as res judicata which preposition has been laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala V. Popular Estate (supra). Thus, we are of the view that the claim made by the petitioner for 57 acres of land in Survey No.925/2/1 stood negatived in the earlier proceedings initiated by his father before Forest Tribunal which culminated into judgment of Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.510/1986 and ignoring the effect of said judgment, no directions ought to have been issued for survey and demarcation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the Writ Appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2010 and by dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent.