JUDGMENT : SATHISH NINAN, J. 1. Assailing the judgment of the District Court, Ernakulam declaring that the proposed notified lands are not liable to be declared as reserve forest, the State is in appeal. 2. The proceedings have a chequered history of more than a century. Three notifications were issued under the Travancore Forest Act (Act II) of 1068 (for short, “the 1068 Act”) proposing to declare the notified areas, which lie contiguous, as reserve forest. The notifications related to the proposed Alapra, Valiyakavu and Karikattoor reserves. The relevant dates of the notifications under the 1068 Act are as follows: “A.Alapra Section 4 - 08.12.1908 Section 6 - 18.02.1908 B.Valiyakavu Section 4 - 2.01.1906 Section 6- 25.11.1959 C.Karkkattoor Section 6 - 20.07.1904 Section 18 - 24.05.1917” It is to be noticed that questions regarding the proposed Karikattoor reserve does not survive for consideration since the same attained finality long back. The same shall be adverted to in the course of the judgment. Suffice to say that in this appeal we are concerned only with the proposed Alapra and Valiyakavu reserves. 3. Pursuant to the notifications, claims were raised challenging the right of the Government to notify the said areas as reserved forest. The challenge was on the ground that the land does not fall within the category of lands specified under the Forest Act, which alone are liable to be notified as reserved forest. Originally the claims were rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer as barred by limitation. In appeal A.S. No.333 of 1955, the District Court, Kottayam, held that the claims are not barred by limitation and set aside the order of the Forest Settlement Officer. The matter was remanded to the Forest Settlement Officer directing consideration of the claims on merits. The said order was affirmed by this Court in the judgment in C.M.A. Nos.118 to 122 of 1957. 4. Pursuant to the order of remand, the claims were considered and dismissed by the Forest Settlement Officer on merits. The claimants went in appeal before the District Court in A.S. Nos.159 of 1976 and 179 of 1976. The learned District Judge allowed the appeals and declared that the lands are not liable to be notified as reserve forest. The State preferred appeal before this Court as M.S.A. No.1 of 1981. The claimants went in appeal before the District Court in A.S. Nos.159 of 1976 and 179 of 1976. The learned District Judge allowed the appeals and declared that the lands are not liable to be notified as reserve forest. The State preferred appeal before this Court as M.S.A. No.1 of 1981. This Court as per judgment dated 18.03.1991, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, thereby rejecting the claims. The matter was taken up before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2659 of 1997. The Apex Court as per order dated 25.11.2003 set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to this Court, for consideration afresh. The Apex Court held thus: “Yet another submission made before us is that the scope of powers under Section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act is not so wide so as to hold de novo inquiry into the whole matter as has been done by the High Court. In that connection, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 16 of the judgment wherein it has been observed that it required a de novo inquiry into the findings. The submission is that the scope of inquiry is limited and is confined to the question of law. In that connection some decisions have also been referred to that the jurisdiction u/s 12A of the Act is akin to Section 100 C.P.C. We feel that since the matter is fit to be remanded for fresh decision this question as raised may also be better canvassed before the High Court for its consideration. In view of the discussion held above, we allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for consideration afresh and for fresh order in accordance with the law. The High Court shall, however, not be influenced by any observations made by us in this judgment and shall be free to arrive at its own conclusion on merits of the case”. Thus the matter is at large before us. 5. The Apex Court directed this Court to consider whether the jurisdiction in an appeal under Section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 is confined to adjudication on substantial questions of law or whether it extends to reappraisal of both law and facts. Thus the matter is at large before us. 5. The Apex Court directed this Court to consider whether the jurisdiction in an appeal under Section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 is confined to adjudication on substantial questions of law or whether it extends to reappraisal of both law and facts. However, subsequent to that order, the Apex Court in James Joseph v. State of Kerala ([2010] 9 SCC 642) held that an Appeal before the High Court under Section 12A(1) of the 1961 Act, though a Second Appeal, is available to be urged both on questions of facts and law. In short, the claims need to be decided both on questions of facts and law. 6. Heard learned Sri M.P. Prakash learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellant State and the counsel for the respondents/claimants including learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Sreekumar. 7. As noticed supra, the proceedings commenced under the 1068 Act. On Passage of time, the same was replaced by the successor Act, viz., The Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, 1951 (for short, “the 1951 Act”) which was again replaced by the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short, “the 1961 Act”). Section 101 of the Travancore Forest Act, 1068 reads thus: “101. Repeal.- (1) The Travancore Forest Act of 1068 (Act II of 1068) as subsequently amended and the Cochin Forest Act (Act III of 1080) as subsequently amended are hereby repealed. (2) All references made in any enactment to the enactments hereby repealed shall be read as if made to the corresponding provisions of this Act. (3) All rules prescribed, appointments made, powers conferred and orders issued under the enactments hereby repealed shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, made, conferred and issued hereunder.” The successor act, viz., the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 also contains a similar provision incorporated in Section 85 therein. It reads thus: “85. Repeal.- (1) The Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, 1951 (III of 1952) and the Madras Forest Act, 1882 (V of 1882) and the Madras Wild Elephants Preservation Act, 1873 (Act I of 1873) as in force in the Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 are hereby repealed. It reads thus: “85. Repeal.- (1) The Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, 1951 (III of 1952) and the Madras Forest Act, 1882 (V of 1882) and the Madras Wild Elephants Preservation Act, 1873 (Act I of 1873) as in force in the Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 are hereby repealed. (2) All references made in any enactment to any provision of the enactments hereby repealed shall be read as if made to the corresponding provisions of this Act. (3) All rules prescribed, appointments made, powers conferred and orders issued under the enactments hereby repealed shall be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, made, conferred and issued hereunder will new rules and enactments are made under the various sections of this Act.” As is evident therefrom, the proceedings under the predecessor Act shall remain valid and shall be deemed to have been issued or commenced under the present Act. The Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd. ([1991] 2 SCC 272) held that the rules framed under the repealed 1951 Act is saved under Section 85(3) of the 1961 Act. There could not be any challenge, and is not urged, that the proceedings commenced under the 1068 Act would continue and survive under the 1961 Act. 8. Pertinently, the provisions in the earlier and the present Acts are substantially analogous and therefore it would be sufficient if we refer to the relevant provisions of the 1961 Act. The most relevant provisions for the consideration of this appeal would be sections 3, 4, 6, 8 and 2(d) of the 1961 Act. For the sake of convenience they are extracted hereunder. “3. Power to reserve forests. - The Government may constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner hereinafter provided. 4. The most relevant provisions for the consideration of this appeal would be sections 3, 4, 6, 8 and 2(d) of the 1961 Act. For the sake of convenience they are extracted hereunder. “3. Power to reserve forests. - The Government may constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner hereinafter provided. 4. Notification by Government.- Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land a Reserved Forest, the Government shall publish a notification in the Gazette- (a) specifying as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; (b) declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land a Reserved Forest; and (c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called the Forest Settlement Officer) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed, by or alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or to any forest produce of such land to deal with the same as provided in this Act. 6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement Officer.- (1) When a notification has been issued under Section 4, the Forest Settlement Officer shall publish in the Gazette and at the headquarters of each Taluk in which any portion of the land included in such notification is situate, and in every town, village and headquarters of Panchayats in the neighbourhood of such land a proclamation- (a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the land proposed to be included within the Reserved Forest, (b) setting forth the substance of the provisions of Section 7, (c) explaining the consequences which as hereinafter provided will ensure on the reservation of such forest, and (d) fixing a period not less than three and not exceeding six months from the date of publishing such proclamation in the gazette, and requiring every person claiming any right referred to in Section 4 either to present to such Officer, within such period, a written statement specifying or to appear before him within such period and state, the nature of such right and in either case, to produce, all documents and other evidence in support thereof. (2) The Forest Settlement Officer shall also serve a notice to the same effect on every known or reputed owner or occupier of any and included in or adjoining the land proposed to be constituted a Reserved Forest, or on his recognized agent or manager. 8. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer.- (1) The Forest Settlement Officer shall inquire into all claims made under Section 6 recording all statements and the evidence in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for appealable cases. (2) He shall, at the same time, consider and record any objection which the Forest Officer, if any appointed under Section 4 to attend at the inquiry on behalf of the Government, may make to any such claim. (3) He may also inquire into and record the existence of any rights referred to in Section 4 and not claimed in answer to the notice issued under Section 6, so far as they are ascertainable from the records of the Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquainted with the same. 2. In this Act, and in all rules made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires.- ....... (g) “land at the disposal of the Government” includes all unoccupied land, all temporarily occupied land and all land occupied without permission, whether assessed or unassessed; but does not include land, the properties of land holders such as Jenmies, Devaswoms, or holders of Inam lands; also all holdings of land in any way subject to the payment of land revenue direct to Government and all other registered holdings of land in proprietary right.” 9. As is evident from the said provisions, to sustain a notification constituting a land as reserve forest, the land must fall within the definition of “land at the disposal of the Government” as defined under Section 2(g) above. Therefore, essentially the question for determination in this appeal is as to, whether the lands in question are, "lands at the disposal of the Government". We are faced with contrary findings by the Forest Settlement Officer and of the District Court. 10. The claimants are the members of one Neythallur Koikal, or are persons claiming title under them on assignment. It is the case that the Neythallur Koikal were members of a Kshethric Caste and that they rendered services to the Maharajah of Travancore during war. 10. The claimants are the members of one Neythallur Koikal, or are persons claiming title under them on assignment. It is the case that the Neythallur Koikal were members of a Kshethric Caste and that they rendered services to the Maharajah of Travancore during war. The Maharajah, in consideration of the services rendered, gave the properties in question to the Neythallur Koikal under Royal Grants (Neets) issued to them. Therefore, according to the claimants, by virtue of the Royal Grants (Neets) issued by the Maharajah of Travancore, the lands in question constitute their thanathu (Jenmom) lands and hence are not liable to be notified as reserve forest. The State disputes the alleged issuance of the Neets by the Maharajah. The genuineness of the Neets produced by the claimants are under challenge. Before the Forest Settlement Officer and the District Court, the deliberations were essentially with regard to the genuineness of the Neets. 11. As noticed, the claim for title by all the claimants are common, that is under Exts P131 Neet of 928, Ext P1 Neet of 942 and Ext P2 Neet of 948 stated to have been granted to the Neythallur Koikal by His Highness The Maharajah of Travancore. 12. Mainly two issues crop up for consideration. Firstly, regarding the genuineness of Exts P131, P1 and P12 Neets and secondly, regarding the identity of the properties covered by the Neets. 13. It is to be noticed that the Neets relied on being of ancient origin, of more than 100 years back, direct evidence to prove the genuineness of the said documents would not be available. Search for direct evidence to resolve the issue would be an exercise in futility. The issue needs to be resolved based on the circumstantial evidence available before the court. 14. Now, let us traverse on to the Royal Grants (Neets), three in number, marked as Exts P131, P1 and P2. The basic grant is Ext P131 Neet of 928. This was followed by Ext P1 Neet of 942 and Ext P2 Neet of 948. Exhibit P131 Neet of 928 was not produced before the Forest Settlement Officer. The main argument before the said authority was footed on the absence of production of the said document which is the basic title. It was projected as a pointer towards the lack of genuineness of the Neets. Exhibit P131 Neet of 928 was not produced before the Forest Settlement Officer. The main argument before the said authority was footed on the absence of production of the said document which is the basic title. It was projected as a pointer towards the lack of genuineness of the Neets. However, the Forest Settlement Officer had noticed that the original of Ext P131 Neet of 928 was produced in court but was later got returned. Though it was the original Neet of 928 that was produced and got returned in the course of the proceeding before the Forest Settlement Officer, a certified copy of the said Neet of 928 was produced before the District Court and marked Ext P131. It is the case of the claimants that the said Neet of 928 had to be produced in O.S. No.160 of 1970 before the Sub Court Padmanabhapuram. It was contended that the said proceedings went upto the Apex Court. A certified copy of the judgment in the said suit was produced before the District Court and was marked as Ext P132. In the said suit the genuineness of Ext P131 Neet of 928 was in issue and the same was upheld, is the contention. It is submitted that the said judgment has since been affirmed by the High Court of Madras as well as the Apex Court. Concededly, the State is not a party to the said suit. Therefore the finding therein regarding the genuineness of the Neet cannot be made the basis for decision in this proceeding. 15. While delving into the question regarding genuineness of Ext P131, P1 and P2 Neets, it would be relevant to refer to the nature of the properties in respect of which the claims are raised. The properties are stated to be "cherikal lands". As to what is a cherikal land has been explained in the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, as follows: “48. The cherikal lands were unregistered dry lands in hilly tracts in certain taluks of the Quilon and Kottayam Division in recurring periods of years and on which the tax was being either levied or was leviable by the Government during the years of actual cultivation. The assessment was known as malavaram or vilameladi, according to the cultivation raised was paddy or other crop. The assessment was known as malavaram or vilameladi, according to the cultivation raised was paddy or other crop. The assessment used to be fixed, after local inspection, at a certain proportion of the produce, and used to be levied, either kin kind or in money, at the current market rate in the case of the paddy tax, and in money at certain pathiva or fixed rate in the case of any other crop. In some places, besides the malavaram tax, an extra cess called paranellu and katta was also levied on all Sirkar or pandaravaga cherikals”. 16. Exhibit P131 Neet of 928 is a certified copy. The original of the said Neet is claimed to be in copper plate. The genuineness of the said document is challenged by the State on various grounds. One of the contentions is that during the said period usage of copper plate was not in vogue. To substantiate the said contention it is submitted that His Highness The Marthandavarma Maharajah of Travancore had dedicated the entire kingdom to Sree Padmanabha Swami by a document which is on cad-Jan leaves. There could not be a more important document than that. When the said dedication, known as “Trippadidanam”, was only on cad-Jan leaves, the claim that a mere Neet alleged to have been issued for services rendered to the Maharajah was issued on copper plate, cannot be believed, is the contention. It is also contended that the writings on the Neet is stated to be 'Vattezhuth' which was not prevalent during that time. As regards Exts P1 and P2 Neets of the years 942 and 948 ME, it is contended that the originals are not produced, that they are not genuine and cannot be relied upon. Exhibits P1 and P2 Neets are certified copies. The trump cards of the claimants to prove the genuineness of Exts P131, P1 and P2 Neets are Exts P3, P102 and P121 documents. The genuineness of these documents are also disputed by the State. 17. Looking into the rights granted under the Neets, firstly we will refer to the basic grant, viz., Ext P131 Neet of the year 928ME. It recites that in consideration of the services rendered to the Maharajah during the time of war, the properties referred to therein, stated to be cherikals, are given to the grantee, viz., Neythallur Koikal. The liability to pay tax was maintained. It recites that in consideration of the services rendered to the Maharajah during the time of war, the properties referred to therein, stated to be cherikals, are given to the grantee, viz., Neythallur Koikal. The liability to pay tax was maintained. The concluding portion of the grant makes it clear that all rights over the property including the rights of alienation have been given thereunder to the grantee. As noticed, absolute right over the properties dealt with therein have been given to the grantee, subject to the liability to pay tax. We are not referring to the details regarding the properties included therein since the issue of identity of the properties are being considered under another head in the course of this judgment. 18. Coming to Ext P1 Neet of the year 942ME, the Forest Settlement Officer, after discussions has held Ext P1 and P2 Neets to be genuine. Under Ext P1 Neet, remission is granted to the Koikal in respect of the tax payable, thus taking away the liability to pay tax. Exhibit P1 Neet indicates that the properties have already been granted in favour of Neythallur Koikal, though it does not specifically refer to Ext P121 Neet of the year 928ME. Coming to Ext P2 Neet of the year 948, the recitals therein reveal that the same was issued consequent on a complaint made by the Koikal as against the action of the officers in violation of the rights granted to the Koikal under the earlier Neets. The rights of the Koikal was reiterated therein. This carries forward a long way in affirming the title of the Koikal under the Neets. 19. Now we shall deal with the supporting evidence relied on by the claimants to prove the genuineness of the Neets, their title and also the identity of the properties. Exhibits P3 and P4 are Ozhukus of the year 1025. “Ozhuku” refers to identification of the boundaries of a property. The copy of the Ozhukus, Exhibits P3 and P4, are issued from the Central Vernacular records. It bears the seal of the office of issue. They are signed by the clerk who prepared it, the officer who compared it and the Record Keeper of the Huzoor Central Vernacular records. “Ozhuku” refers to identification of the boundaries of a property. The copy of the Ozhukus, Exhibits P3 and P4, are issued from the Central Vernacular records. It bears the seal of the office of issue. They are signed by the clerk who prepared it, the officer who compared it and the Record Keeper of the Huzoor Central Vernacular records. The genuineness of Exts P3 and P4 Ozhukus were challenged by the State producing the issue register kept in the Vernacular records during the relevant period; the said register did not contain entries relating to issuance of Ext P3 and P4 copies of the Ozhukus. However, the mere omission of such an entry in the record would not, on the face of the other available materials, drive us to a conclusion that Exts P3 and P4 are fabricated documents. The genuineness of the said documents is corroborated by other documents which are being referred to during the course of discussion. Even the Forest Settlement Officer, who rejected the claims, has upheld the genuineness of Exts P3 and P4 Ozhukus. The Forest Settlement Officer has, on an elaborate consideration, held Exts P3 and P4 Ozhukus to be genuine. The Forest Settlement Officer in paragraph 19 of the judgment has noticed that though Exts P3 and P4 are only copies of copies, the first copy has been produced in the connected cases. Exhibits P3 and P4 Ozhukus purport to identify the properties covered under the Neets. The said Ozhukus refer to Exts P131, P1 and P2 Neets. Though the State would contend that the said documents are not genuine, these are copies of the documents issued from the office of the Vernacular Records. The reference to the Neets, as stated above, in Exts P3 and P4 Ozhukus, goes a long way in proving the genuineness of the Neets and the title of the Neythallur Koikal over the properties covered under the Neets. It is pertinent to note that the Ozhukus describe the properties thereunder to be the 'thanathu' property of the Koikal by virtue of the Neets. 20. Yet another important piece of evidence that throws light on the issue regarding the genuineness of the Neets and the title to the properties thereunder is Ext P102 document dated 23.02.1073ME. It is an order passed by the Dewan Peishcar. 20. Yet another important piece of evidence that throws light on the issue regarding the genuineness of the Neets and the title to the properties thereunder is Ext P102 document dated 23.02.1073ME. It is an order passed by the Dewan Peishcar. Before probing into the contents of the document, it needs to be mentioned that, it is a certified copy of the document. The Forest Settlement Officer has after detailed discussions concluded that Ext P102 order is genuine. It would be relevant to refer to the background in which Ext P102 order was passed by the Dewan. The Koikal was holding large extent of properties. There was lack of proper management. The then senior-most member of the Koikal, requested the Maharajah to take over management of the properties. The Maharajah agreed for the same and Ext P9 agreement dated 05.10.1072 ME was entered into by the Koikal with the State. A manager was appointed. For the purpose of taking over the management, instructions were given by the State to verify regarding the details of the assets, viz., the lands owned by the Koikal and which are being taken over pursuant to the arrangement. It is pursuant thereto that Ext P102 order was issued by the Dewan Peishcar. Exhibit P102 order refers to Ext P9 agreement. It also refers to Exts P131, P1 and P2 Neets in favour of the Koikal. It further asserts that the Koikal has title over the properties dealt with thereunder and affirms that the properties are being taken over by the Government to administer the same in terms of Ext P9 agreement. Therefore, Ext P102 reinforces the genuineness of the Neets and also the title of Koikal over the properties dealt with therein. 21. In connection with the management of the properties, Exhibits P14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 99 Kanapattoms' were executed by the Manager. Exhibit P18 is an agreement, renewing the term of Manager-ship. The said documents corroborate the genuineness of Ext P102 order. 22. Another document relied on by the claimants to assert their title is Ext P121 order. The said order was issued by Shri V.Nagam Aiya, who is, going by historical records, a well respected and held to be a very responsible Officer of the State. He was appointed as a clerk in Dewan's Huzzoor English Office. 22. Another document relied on by the claimants to assert their title is Ext P121 order. The said order was issued by Shri V.Nagam Aiya, who is, going by historical records, a well respected and held to be a very responsible Officer of the State. He was appointed as a clerk in Dewan's Huzzoor English Office. In 1872 he was appointed as Tahsildar and later promoted as the Dewan Peishcar. In recognition of his meritorious service to the State and people he was awarded the title of Dewan Bahadur by the Government in January, 1910. The very genuineness of the said document, Ext P121, is challenged by the State. If the genuineness of Ext P121 is found, then the correctness of the contents could very well be assumed in view of the credibility of the author of the same namely, Sri V.Nagam Aiya. The Forest Settlement Officer has noticed that the sheets of papers on which Ext P121 has been issued are special type of papers used exclusively by the Government for Governmental purposes in those days. The papers are embossed with the seal of the Government. The State emblem and the inscription, "Government of Travancore" are seen. It was further noticed that all the sheets bear the Seal of the Travancore Settlement Office. It was further noticed that on comparison of the seals and signatures on Ext P121 with those on the undisputed documents, Exts P11, P12 and P84, the same appear to be genuine. It was further noticed that Ext P121 contains the official file number and date. As stated by the Forest Settlement Officer if Ext P121 is a fabricated document the State could very well produce the file containing the number as seen on Ext P121 and could have proved that Ext P121 is not genuine. That has not been attempted to. 23. The genuineness of Ext P121 order was challenged on yet another ground. It was contended that Ext P121 order refers to 'Jamabandi'. But according to the State, the very Jamabandi system was introduced only in 1098ME. Therefore the reference to Jamabandi in Ext 121 order which is of the year 1077 belies the genuineness of the document, is the contention. The genuineness of Ext P121 order was challenged on yet another ground. It was contended that Ext P121 order refers to 'Jamabandi'. But according to the State, the very Jamabandi system was introduced only in 1098ME. Therefore the reference to Jamabandi in Ext 121 order which is of the year 1077 belies the genuineness of the document, is the contention. The Forest Settlement Officer with reference to the Land Revenue Manual has noticed that the Jamabandi system was introduced in Travancore as early as in 987ME or at any rate long before the year 1077ME. No material has been brought to enter a different finding. 24. Yet another ground of challenge as against Ext P121 is that it was not produced in the prior litigations in relation to the disputed cherikals. It was noticed by the Forest Settlement Officer that the said document was in fact produced in some of the cases, but certainly, not in all. The Forest Settlement Officer found that the non-production of the document in the various litigation which arose during the period in which the officers of the State were in management of the properties pursuant to the arrangement evidenced by Ext P9 and the subsequent agreements, cannot be made as a ground to hold against the genuineness of the document. We concur with the said observations. 25. Both the authorities have held Ext P121 to be a genuine document. No compelling reasons have been made out to take a different view. We endorse the concurrent finding of the authorities below. 26. The circumstance that led to the issuance of Ext P121 order is relevant. The Koikal complained to the Maharajah that their rights in respect of the properties granted by the Royal Neets are being infringed and disregarded by the the Government officials. They requested for identification, delineation and separate settlement of the properties of the Koikal. Orders were issued by the Maharajah in the said regard. It is pursuant thereto and based on the enquiry conducted that Ext P121 order was passed. It refers to the holdings of the Koikal. The Neets in question have been specifically adverted to in Ext P121. Exhibit P121 reflects that the cherikals held by the Neythallur Koikal were ascertained. Therefore Ext P121 order goes a long way in proving the title of the Neythallur Koikal by virtue of the Royal Neets. 27. It refers to the holdings of the Koikal. The Neets in question have been specifically adverted to in Ext P121. Exhibit P121 reflects that the cherikals held by the Neythallur Koikal were ascertained. Therefore Ext P121 order goes a long way in proving the title of the Neythallur Koikal by virtue of the Royal Neets. 27. Yet another piece of evidence relied on by the claimants to prove their title is Ext P28 certificate. Thereunder the officials of the Forest Department have affirmed the title of the Koikal to the lands and confirmed that the trees thereon belong to the Koikal. So also are Exts P5 to P8 'Mathivu Cheets' which are receipts issued regarding the levy for cultivating the cherikals with paddy. These receipts acknowledge the title of the Koikal in respect to the cherikals. 28. The inevitable finding, on the materials as adverted to above, is upholding Exts P131, P1 and P2 Neets, and the title to the properties covered thereunder. 29. Having found the genuineness of the documents relied on by the claimants to establish their claim of title and having found that they have obtained title to the properties thereunder by virtue of Exts P131, P1 and P2 Neets, the next question that arises for determination is regarding the identity of the properties covered under the Neets. 30. The dispute raised regarding the identity of the properties is essentially built upon the bifurcation of the areas into "muries" and "karas". While the State would contend that the Neets in question relate only to cherikals in Ezhumattur and Thelliyur, and therefore does not include the properties in question, viz., Alapra, Perumpetty and Chethakkal muries, according to the claimants Ezhumattur and Thelliyur karas got subdivided into Alapra, Perumpetty and Chethakkal muries; therefore the areas in question are covered under the Neets. No authentic records are forthcoming as to in which muri or kara the lands fell at that point of time. Therefore, identification of the properties with reference to muries and karas is impracticable. The Forest Settlement Officer has with reference to certain well defined, stable and undisputed boundary marks, identified and located the properties. The Forest Settlement Officer has entered into a detailed consideration under issue No.11 regarding the identity of the properties. It was concluded that the notified areas form part of the lands claimed by the claimants. The Forest Settlement Officer has with reference to certain well defined, stable and undisputed boundary marks, identified and located the properties. The Forest Settlement Officer has entered into a detailed consideration under issue No.11 regarding the identity of the properties. It was concluded that the notified areas form part of the lands claimed by the claimants. After an elaborate discussion he concluded thus: "I therefore hold that the proposed Alapra and Valiakavu reserve areas fall within the Cherikals mentioned in Ext P3, P4 and P121". The Forest Settlement Officer has referred to the boundaries of the properties as mentioned in Exts P3 and P4. He has also referred to the boundaries of the properties as mentioned in Ext P121. It was found that the properties covered under Ext P3 Ozhuku is on the southern side of the property covered under Ext P4 Ozhuku and that the said properties are adjacent to each other. The findings were arrived at on the basis of the boundary descriptions. It was observed by the Forest Settlement Officer that all the land marks as given in Exts P3 and P4 were not identified but that certain well known land marks, either admitted or proved, were identified. It was also noticed that such land marks were accepted by both sides. He has also referred to Exts P114 commissioner's report, Exts P93, P94, P111 and P113 plans and Ext P115 mahazar to arrive at a conclusion regarding the issue of identity. As noticed supra, the attempt of the State to dislodge the said finding with regard to the description of the properties with reference to muries cannot be sustained in the absence of proper, acceptable and conclusive evidence in the said regard. The finding of identity by the Forest Settlement Officer has been affirmed by the District Court in appeal. The District Court has referred to the issue of identity and held as under: "The finding of the learned FSO on issue regarding the identity of the properties notified as the properties referred to in the Royal Neets, Ozhukus and the Government Orders has to be and is confirmed". On the available evidence, we approve the finding of the authorities that the Alapra and Valiyakavu reserve areas fall within the properties covered under Exts P3, P4 and P121. On the available evidence, we approve the finding of the authorities that the Alapra and Valiyakavu reserve areas fall within the properties covered under Exts P3, P4 and P121. As noticed supra, these documents have been prepared with reference to the Royal Neets Exts P131, P1 and P2 which are the title deeds relied upon by the claimants. Therefore the notified areas fall within the documents of title of the claimants. Sufficient materials to upset the finding regarding identity of the properties are not available. The finding regarding identity is affirmed. 31. It is to be noticed that there were various litigations in respect of various items of properties between the parties. The entire documents relied on in this proceeding to prove title, have not been put forward or brought on record in any of those cases by either sides. Both sides would urge that the contention of the opposite party is barred by res judicata or that non-production of a particular document in a previous litigation would lead to adverse inference regarding genuineness of that document. The findings in the said litigations are contradictory. It is to be noticed that identity of the properties covered under the said litigations has not been established. The parties are at variance as to whether the said litigations related to the notified areas or not. The parties thereto also varies. 32. Referring to Ext D8 partition deed entered into in the Neythallur Koikal family, the State contended that the cherikals in question are conspicuously not included therein. If the said lands belonged to the Koikal, definitely it should have found a place in the said family partition. The State contends that, the very circumstance is sufficient to find absence of title of the claimants over the disputed cherikals. However, the learned counsel for the claimants brought to our notice that Ext D8 partition deed in fact referred to the cherikals. Referring to the cherikals it is recited therein that the Rajabhogam (tax) in respect of the cherikals in the two desoms, Thelliyoor and Ezhumattoor, was relinquished in favour of the Koikal itself and that it has been affirmed as per the judgment in Appeal No.294 of 1096 of the Travancore High Court. Therefore the contention regarding non-mentioning of the cherikals in question in Ext D8 Partition Deed is unsustainable. 33. Therefore the contention regarding non-mentioning of the cherikals in question in Ext D8 Partition Deed is unsustainable. 33. The learned Senior Government Pleader would, placing reliance on the Revenue Settlement Proclamation, 1061, contend that the said proclamation required the issuance of a Patta for the properties and that even assuming that the Neets are genuine, without obtaining Patta as required under the said Proclamation, claimants cannot claim title of the properties. The claimants have no case that Patta under the said Proclamation has been obtained in respect of the land in question. Parties are not in agreement regarding the applicability of the Revenue Settlement Proclamation, 1061 to cherikal lands. The said proclamation does not make any reference to cherikals. Here it would be relevant to refer to the rules for settlement of cherikal lands passed by High Highness the Maharajah on 23.03.1907: “Rules for the Settlement of Cherikal Lands Passed by His Highness the Maha Rajah Under date The 23 rd March 1907 10th Meenom 1082 1. The term 'Cherikal' includes all lands known as such in which paddy or other cultivation is carried on in recurring periods of years and on which malavarom or vilameladi tax alone has either been levied or was leviable by Government when they were cultivated. 2. Subject to the following modifications, the existing rules regarding classification, registration and assessment of paddy lands, gardens and waste lands shall be applicable to the classification, registration and assessment of Cherikals. I. In the place of the 13 rates of assessment varying from 1 to 15 Fs. Per acre now applied to waste dry lands, the rates for dry Cherikal waste lands shall be only 7 and shall be as follows:- Class Assessment in fanams per Acre 1 .... ..... ..... 7 2 .... ..... ..... 6 3 ..... ..... ..... 5 4 ..... ..... ..... 4 5 ..... ..... ..... 3 6 ..... ..... ..... 2 7 ..... ..... ..... 1 II. The maximum rate of tharavila or acreage value leviable on Cherikals is three times the assessment fixed on them. III. In valuing reserved trees in Cherikals, trees of only 89 vannams and above in girth shall be taken into account. IV. ..... ..... 4 5 ..... ..... ..... 3 6 ..... ..... ..... 2 7 ..... ..... ..... 1 II. The maximum rate of tharavila or acreage value leviable on Cherikals is three times the assessment fixed on them. III. In valuing reserved trees in Cherikals, trees of only 89 vannams and above in girth shall be taken into account. IV. The assessment to be fixed on Cherikals held by Jenmis (Devaswoms and Brahaswoms) or others on favourable terms and on which the Government have been hitherto levying one half the full malavarom or vilameladi tax due on Pandaravaka Cherikals or on which any such half rates were leviable by Government shall be one half of the full assessment hereafter to be fixed on Pandaravaka Cherikals irrespective of whether such lands have been alienated or not. V. The enquiries into registration cases relating to Cherikals claimed by Jenmis, their alienees or others as held by them on payment of one half of or less than the full assessment due on Pandaravaka Cherikals or by Jenmis as wholly rent free shall be conducted in a quasi-judicial manner, both parties being heard (the Sirkar being represented by a Deputy Supervisor specially appointed for the purpose), evidence received and recorded and written decisions passed, briefly stating the points at issue, the findings thereon and the reasons for the same. Such enquiries shall be held and such cases disposed of by Assistant Settlement Peishkars or Additional Assistant Settlement Peishkars appointed by Government. Cases relating to other Cherikal lands shall be dealt with by the Supervisors under the ordinary procedure relating to registration enquiries.” From Rule 2 above, it is seen that existing rules regarding classification, registration and assessment is made applicable to cherikals subject to the modification as mentioned therein. As noticed, it is only from 23.03.1907. Subsequently, as per Order No.3427 dated 16.04.1911 the rules regarding registry of cherikals dated 23.03.1907 above referred to was cancelled. The relevant portion of the proceedings of His Highness The Maharajah of Travancore in the said regard is extracted hereunder: “Read again the following Government Notifications regarding Malavaram or Vilameladi cultivation raised on Cherikals and other unregistered lands:- (i) No.5786, dated the 25th Makarom 1059 (ii) No.5034, dated the 5th Meenom 1062. (iii) Dated the 31st Medom 1062. Read also:- (iv) G.O. No.949/L.R., dated the 13th February 1907, about the settlement of Cherikal lands. (iii) Dated the 31st Medom 1062. Read also:- (iv) G.O. No.949/L.R., dated the 13th February 1907, about the settlement of Cherikal lands. (v) Rules dated the 23 rd March 1907 regarding the settlement of Cherikal lands.” ............................................................................................. ............................................................................................. 2. The Malavaram or Vilameladi cultivation is fugitive cultivation, carried on at intervals ranging from 6 to 12 years, on Cherikals and other unregistered lands. The cultivation is inspected by the village officers and charged according to certain rates prescribed by the Government Notifications read above. These Notifications were all issued before the introduction of the Land Conservancy Regulation (II of 1067). With the completion of Cherikal settlement, most of the unregistered lands, which used to be brought under the Malavaram or Vilameladi cultivation, have come under permanent registry. As the system of allowing the Malavaram or Vilameladi cultivation on unregistered lands appeared to be inconsistent with the spirit of the Land Conservancy Regulation and as the method of assessing such cultivation afforded scope for fraud and oppression by ill-paid subordinates, the opinions of the Division Peishkars were invited as to whether the system might not be dispensed with altogether. The Peishkars' replies have been received and perused by the Government. ORDER THEREON NO.3427 DATED L.R. TRIVANDRUM 16TH MARCH 1911 3RD MEDOM 1086 His Highness' Government resolve to prohibit hereafter the system of Malavaram or Vilameladi cultivation, on the unregistered lands at their disposal. The Notifications relating to the Malavaram or Vilameladi cultivation, read above, are hereby cancelled. Whoever occupies without the permission of the Government, any Government Cherikal or other Government land shall be liable to be proceeded against under the Land Conservancy Regulations. The Rules regarding the registry of Cherikals, issued under dated the 23 rd March 1907, are also cancelled. The Government direct that all Government Cherikals or other Sirkar lands available for registry should hereafter be dealt with under the ordinary Puduval Rules, except those lands that may be granted for the cultivation of coffee, tea, rubber, cardamom, etc., under special rules, in whose case the special rules will continue to apply.” (emphasis supplied) 34. That apart, as is evident from the very proclamation, the same relates to revenue purposes in connection with recovery of tax. Here it is to be incidentally noticed that by virtue of Ext P1 Neet the liability to pay tax was relinquished by the Maharajah. That apart, as is evident from the very proclamation, the same relates to revenue purposes in connection with recovery of tax. Here it is to be incidentally noticed that by virtue of Ext P1 Neet the liability to pay tax was relinquished by the Maharajah. At any rate, if Neythallur Koikal had obtained title to the properties by virtue of the Royal Neets, the mere absence of a Patta under the said Proclamation could not affect their title. Suffice to notice that the contention regarding non-obtaining of Patta under the Revenue Settlement Proclamation, 1061 is not decisive on the issue of title. 35. The learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that Ext P114 commission report dated 29.01.1966 would show that the properties in question are thick forest without any cultivation as claimed by the claimants. As submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, a reading of the report indicates non-existence of any cultivation and the properties lie as thick forest. It would be relevant to refer to certain portions of the commission report which is extracted hereunder: “20. The proposed Alapra Reserved Forest is now in the entire possession of the State. There is no Trace of any cultivation having been done anywhere within the area except in the swamps leased out by Government. The claimants in the cases admit that there is no cultivation in this forest area (Vide Mahazars B to D attached). If cherikkals are lands within the forest regions where paddy and other crops are cultivated periodically, no such lands are now found anywhere within the notified area of the proposed Reserved Forest. From the growth of the trees and other evidences available, it could be seen that the forest was in the possession of the State for the past several years. It is evident that no cultivation is done in this area either periodically or permanently and that there is no existing Cherikkals anywhere here. 23. It is admitted by the claimants that present the entire area is a thick forest in the possession of the state and that there is no cultivation anywhere in it except in the swamps leased out by Govt. Their claim seems to be that in the places pointed out by them the Cherikkals once existed. 23. It is admitted by the claimants that present the entire area is a thick forest in the possession of the state and that there is no cultivation anywhere in it except in the swamps leased out by Govt. Their claim seems to be that in the places pointed out by them the Cherikkals once existed. But it is stated from the Sarkar side that no cherikkal ever existed in the R.F. area and that there is no sign in it of any cherikkal, past or present”. 36. However, as to whether the properties are lying as forest as on the date of the commission report and its significance, if any, are not matters in issue in the present proceedings. The issue that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the notified lands are 'lands at the disposal of the Government' as defined under the 1961 Act. To conclude, we hold that, the lands in question are not 'lands at the disposal of the Government' in terms of Section 2(g) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. 37. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants would raise a contention regarding maintainability of a single appeal against the common judgment in A.S. No.159 of 76 and A.S. No.179 of 1979, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader in view of Rule 2 of Kerala Forest (Appeal to the High Court) Rules, 1981, a single appeal is sufficient. Hence there is no defect regarding the institution and maintainability of this appeal. 38. The notification relating to Karikattoor reserve was not a subject matter of the present proceeding. However, it is seen that the learned District Judge ventured to consider the validity of notification regarding the Karikattoor reserve also. The learned District Judge proceeded to hold thus: “...As the properties are not properties at the disposal of the Government, the notification regarding it is void ineffective as regards the rights of the Koikal and the claimants. They can ignore the same and rejection of claims preferred in respect of Karikattoor will not in any manner bar the rights of the appellants to contend that the notification itself is ultra vires and ineffective on the principle laid down in AIR 1961 Kerala 202 already referred to. They can ignore the same and rejection of claims preferred in respect of Karikattoor will not in any manner bar the rights of the appellants to contend that the notification itself is ultra vires and ineffective on the principle laid down in AIR 1961 Kerala 202 already referred to. The contention of the State regarding Karikattoor that final notification under Section 18 of the Regulation has been issued and as such the appellants are precluded from making claims regarding Karikattoor reserve in the present proceeding relating to Alapra and Valiyakavu proposed reserves cannot stand in the light of what has been stated above.” The learned District Judge has gone beyond the scope of the proceedings and also the subject matter of the lis. The finding as regards the notification relating to Karikattoor reserve is liable to be set aside and we do so. 39. However, for the reasons as mentioned supra, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned District Judge, in so far as it relates to the proposed Alapra and Valiyakavu reserves. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. Chitambaresh, J. (concurring) 40. I concur with my brother Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan confirming the judgment of the court below in so far as it relates to the proposed Alapra and Valiyakavu Reserves and setting aside the finding as regards Karikattoor Reserve. This does not however mean that the property claimed by the respondents in the Alapra and Valiyakavu Reserves are liable to be restored to them consequently. This is because we have not considered as to whether the property has vested in the Government under two other Acts in succession which have a bearing on the entitlement for restoration. There is a statutory vesting under Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 ['the 1971 Act' for short] and the same is as follows: “3. There is a statutory vesting under Section 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 ['the 1971 Act' for short] and the same is 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 area 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 for 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.” Any dispute as to whether such land is a private forest or not as defined under the 1971 Act or has vested in the Government has to be decided by the Tribunal constituted for the purpose under Section 8 thereof which is as follows: “8. Settlement of disputes.- (1) Where any dispute arises as to whether- (a) any land is a private forest or not; or (b) any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not, the person who claims that the land is not a private forest or that the private forest has not vested in the Government, may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Tribunal for decision of the dispute. (2) Any application under sub-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 therefor; 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 possession of such land or private forest or portion, as the case may be, to the person in possession thereof immediately before the appointed day.” 41. Similarly there is a statutory vesting of the ecologically fragile lands under Section 3 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 ['the 2003 Act' for short] which is as follows: “3. Ecologically fragile land to vest in Government.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or in any custom, contract or other documents, with effect from the date of commencement of this Act, the ownership and possession of all ecologically fragile lands held by any person or any other form of right over them, shall 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 thereon shall stand extinguished from the said date. (2) The lands vested in the Government under sub-section (1) shall be notified in the Gazette and the owner shall be informed in writing by the custodian and the notification shall be placed before the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 15 for perusal.” Any dispute as to whether any land is an ecologically fragile land as defined under the 2003 Act or has vested in the Government has to be decided by the Tribunal constituted for the purpose under Section 10 thereof which is as follows: “10. Settlement of disputes by the Tribunal.- (1) Where any dispute arises as to whether- (a) any land is an ecologically fragile land or not; or (b) any ecologically fragile land or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not; or (c) the compensation determined under Section 8 is insufficient or not, the person who claims that the land is not an ecologically fragile land or that the ecologically fragile land has not vested in the Government, or that the compensation is not sufficient, may, within five years from the date of commencement of this Act or within six months from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 declaring the land to be an ecologically fragile land or the date of communication of compensation under Section 8, as the case may be, or within such time as the Government may notify in this behalf, apply to the Tribunal for settlement of the dispute. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) If the Tribunal decides that any land is not an ecologically fragile land or that an ecologically fragile land or portion thereof has not vested in the Government and- (a) no appeal under Section 11 has been preferred against the decision of the Tribunal within the period specified therein; or (b) such appeal having been preferred under Section 11 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 possession of such land or portion, as the case may be, to the owner of such land. (4) If the Tribunal decides that the compensation determined under Section 8 is not adequate and revises the amount of compensation and- (a) no appeal under Section 11 has been preferred against the decision of the Tribunal within the period specified therein; or (b) such appeal having been preferred under Section 11 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, pay such compensation to the owner of such land.” 42. Decisions are legion that vesting takes place by operation of law and is not dependent on any notification which is only a ministerial act by the Government following the vesting. The parties are not also precluded from moving the Tribunal in the absence of a notification if a dispute exists [See Bhargavi Amma v. State of Kerala (1997 [2] KLT 513 [FB])]. We say so since the Senior Government Pleader referring to Ext P114 commission report asserts that the property in question are copious forests. The stand of the Senior Government Pleader as well as the relevant portion of Ext 114 commission report has been adverted to in paragraph 35 (supra) of this judgment. There is neither any pleading nor any proof that any of the respondents were disabled from raising cultivation in the property in view of the dispute pending in this appeal. The relevant dates for determining whether the property is a 'private forest' or an 'ecologically fragile land' are 10.05.1971 and 02.06.2000, respectively. The nature of the property as on those dates would be relevant in order to decide as to whether the respondents are entitled to restoration either under the 1971 Act or the 2003 Act. The non-obstante clause contained in the aforesaid enactments whittles down the importance of the adjudication under the 1068 Act or the 1961 Act. The findings in this appeal in other words would at best advance the title claimed by the respondents till the date of vesting under the 1971 Act or the 2003 Act. The nature of the property would have changed vastly over these hundred years since growth of trees and shrubs in forest area cannot be arrested. The findings in this appeal in other words would at best advance the title claimed by the respondents till the date of vesting under the 1971 Act or the 2003 Act. The nature of the property would have changed vastly over these hundred years since growth of trees and shrubs in forest area cannot be arrested. Suffice it to say that the question whether there has been a vesting under the 1971 Act or the 2003 Act has not been considered in this appeal since the parties are yet to join issues thereon.