JUDGMENT : Nitin Jamdar, C. J. The Government of Kerala declared around 9,000 hectares of land in Munnar Hills as Reserved Forest. The Petitioner challenged this declaration in W.P.(C) No.18595 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in a judgment dated 18th June 2007 observing that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. 2. The Petitioner is in appeal before us under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 contending that since the Petitioner has challenged the competence of the Government of Kerala in issuing such a notification, the adjudicatory machinery under the Act of 1961 is not the adequate remedy and only recourse is to approach under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question, thus, arises is whether the Petitioner has a remedy to assail the notification under the provisions of the Act of 1961 on the grounds as contended. 3. Since the Appellant asserts that the remedy of appeal is unavailable given the facts and circumstances, a brief overview of the case of the Appellant is necessary. The case of the Appellant is as under: 3.1 The Appellant is a member of the Poonjar Royal Family, also known as Poonjar Koickal or Poonjar Kovilakam. This family, once the largest Janmi in Travancore, followed the Hindu joint family system of Marumakkathayam until 1976. The family originally belonged to the Madurai Royal Family, which relocated to Malayala Desom in 1132 for specific reasons. Later, in 1252 and 1419, the Appellant's ancestors purchased two tracts of land, the Kannan Devan Hills and Manjamala Periyar Malampram, from the Chengamanad Devaswom family in the Kingdom of Vadakkumkur. These lands, tax-free and under no Government revenue control, later fell under the sovereignty of the Travancore State in 1756. Kannan Devan Hills became part of Kottayam District’s Meenachil Taluk, while Manjamala Periyar Malampram was included in the district’s Thodupuzha Taluk. 3.2 Originally, the Appellant’s family was part of the Pandya dynasty, which ruled Madurai. After acquiring the above lands, they invited subjects from Madurai to settle there. Later, when Tipu Sultan invaded regions like Dindigul, Periyakulam, and Theni in 1780, more subjects sought refuge with the family. They were granted land and permitted to make a living by cultivating crops and gathering forest produce. The settlers practised "Cheri" cultivation—burning vegetation to plant crops like ragi and shifting cultivation when soil fertility declined. Later, when Tipu Sultan invaded regions like Dindigul, Periyakulam, and Theni in 1780, more subjects sought refuge with the family. They were granted land and permitted to make a living by cultivating crops and gathering forest produce. The settlers practised "Cheri" cultivation—burning vegetation to plant crops like ragi and shifting cultivation when soil fertility declined. They also collected forest goods like cardamom, pepper, cinnamon, and ivory, which they sent to the family for rewards. 3.3 In 1877, Mr. John Daniel Munroe, a British official engaged in surveying the inter-state boundary with Madras, requested Kerala Varma Valiya Raja, the Appellant’s Karanavan (head of the family), to lease portions of Kannan Devan Hills for coffee cultivation. They entered into a lease on July 11, 1877, excluding land used by tenants for agriculture and public utilities. The lease deed, registered as Document No. 733/1052 in the Meenachil District Registry, required an initial security deposit of Rs.5,000 and an annual rent of Rs.3,000. The lease included a provision for the land’s return to the family without compensation under specific conditions. As the original lease restricted succession or assignment, a modification was executed on July 26, 1879, allowing inheritance and assignment of the lease rights. 3.4. On November 8, 1879, Munroe transferred his leasehold interest to the North Travancore Land Planting & Agricultural Society Ltd., which paid a premium for the family’s consent. After the Society went into liquidation, it assigned the lease to Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., a Scottish entity, on July 16, 1900. The State formalized an agreement with the Company in 1914, reaffirming the conditions laid out in earlier deeds. 3.5 In 1961, the Kerala Land Tax Act was enacted, imposing a basic tax on all lands in Kerala, including leased properties. While the original lease rent of Rs.3,000 was substantial in 1877, it became nominal by 1961, and the new tax burden exceeded the rental income. The State demanded Rs.2,57,602.22 for 1,28,801.09 acres leased by the Appellant’s family to the Company. 3.6 In 1971, the Kerala Government enacted the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, vesting Government land held by lessees in the State. On January 21, 1971, the lessee possessed 1,28,800.98 acres, consisting of plantations and unutilized agricultural land. The State demanded Rs.2,57,602.22 for 1,28,801.09 acres leased by the Appellant’s family to the Company. 3.6 In 1971, the Kerala Government enacted the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, vesting Government land held by lessees in the State. On January 21, 1971, the lessee possessed 1,28,800.98 acres, consisting of plantations and unutilized agricultural land. The Appellant and her family members challenged the failure of the State to conduct statutory survey under Section 6(1) of the KDH Act by filing O.P. No. 29673/2001, arguing that the State was unlawfully interfering with their property rights. Subsequently, 71,441.4 acres were acknowledged as being under the family’s possession, as confirmed by a letter from the District Collector dated April 10, 2005. 3.7 The leased lands were recognized as jenmam property, meaning the ownership rights remained vested in the Appellant’s family. This status was upheld in multiple legal proceedings, including O.S. No. 265/1072 ME, W.P. No.44/1971, W.P.(C) No.8682/2005, and O.P. No. 29673/2001. The family remains the rightful lessor, with the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. as the lessee. 4. On May 16, 2007, the Government issued G.O.(P) No. 25/2007/F & WLD, proposing to declare certain areas within the leased lands as a Reserved Forest under Section 4 of the Act of 1961. Challenging the notification dated 16 May 2007, the Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.18595 of 2007 in this Court. The said Writ Petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 18 June 2007. The learned Single Judge referring to Sections 4, 8, 10 and 11 of the Act of 1961, observed that Petitioner has an alternate remedy and, therefore, declined to entertain the Writ Petition. 5. We have heard Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader for Forests. 6. The Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) was enacted to unify and amend the law relating to the protection and management of forests in the State of Kerala. Section 3 of the Act of 1961 confers power on the State Government to constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner provided under the Act. Section 3 of the Act of 1961 confers power on the State Government to constitute any land at the disposal of the Government a Reserved Forest in the manner provided under the Act. Section 4 of the Act of 1961 provides that whenever the State Government proposed to constitute any land a Reserved Forest, the Government shall publish a notification in the Gazette, specifying the situation and limits of such land; declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land a Reserved Forest; and appointing a Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into and determine the existing nature and extent of any rights claimed. Section 6 of the Act contemplates proclamation by the Forest Settlement Officer. Enquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer is contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. Section 10 provides as to when the inquiry is completed by the Forest Settlement Officer and the orders that he can pass. Section 11 provides for an appeal from the orders of the Settlement Officer to the District Court and under Section 12A appeal to the High Court is provided for. Therefore, first there would be order passed by the Settlement Officer, then an appeal to the District Court and then to the High Court. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant’s case is once the competence of the State to issue a notification is challenged, the Forest Settlement Officer being a Government Officer cannot decide the issue as to the competence of the State. The learned counsel further submitted that there are various proceedings pending in this Court and other Courts whereby the title of the State Government to the subject land is in serious dispute. Therefore, the land is not vested in the State Government and only the lands which are at the disposal of the Government can be declared as Reserved Forest. The learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of the Act of 1961 would show that the power of the Forest Settlement Officer is limited and no declaration can be given that the entire notification is bad in law. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 4 r/w. Sections 8 and 10 of the Act would show that it is in limited circumstances that the Forest Settlement Officer can intervene. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 4 r/w. Sections 8 and 10 of the Act would show that it is in limited circumstances that the Forest Settlement Officer can intervene. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in directing the Appellant to approach the Forum under the Act of 1961 without appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant. 8. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests submitted that the contention of the Appellant that the Forest Settlement Officer is a Government Officer and cannot decide the issues raised by the Appellant is entirely incorrect. He submitted that the Forest Settlement Officer can decide all claims made before him and against his order there is a substantive remedy of appeal to the District Court where all factual and legal questions can be considered. It is also submitted that ultimately what the Appellant claims is a right in the subject land and nothing more. The learned Special Government Pleader has drawn our attention to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in M.S.A No.1 of 1981 dated 10 January 2018 in identical circumstances exercising power under Section 12A of the Act of 1961 and has decided the contentions similar to the one raised by the Appellant herein in the said appeal. 9. We have considered the rival contentions. 10. The first is to consider the status of the Forest Settlement Officer, as the contention of the Appellant is that being a Government Officer, the Forest Settlement Officer cannot decide the issue as to the competence of the State. 11. Section 4 of the Act of 1961 empowers the Government to issue notification. It reads thus: “4. 10. The first is to consider the status of the Forest Settlement Officer, as the contention of the Appellant is that being a Government Officer, the Forest Settlement Officer cannot decide the issue as to the competence of the State. 11. Section 4 of the Act of 1961 empowers the Government to issue notification. It reads thus: “4. Notification by Government.- Whenever it is proposed to constitute any land as 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 any forest produce of such land and to deal with the same as provided in this Act. The officer appointed under clause (c) of this section shall ordinarily be a person other than a Forest Officer, but a Forest Officer may be appointed by the Government to attend, on behalf of the Government, at the enquiry prescribed by this Chapter.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, as per Section 4 of the Act of 1961, the Forest Settlement Officer shall ordinarily be a person other than the Forest Officer. In the present appeal, we are informed that he is a Revenue Officer. Forest Officer is separately defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1961, which reads as under: “(c) “Forest Officer” means any person appointed by name or as holding an office by or under the orders of the Government to be a Chief Conservator, a Conservator, Deputy Conservator, Assistant Conservator, Divisional Forest Officer, Ranger, Deputy Ranger, Forester, a Timber Depot Officer, Forest Guard, Forest Plantation Maistry, Watcher, Gram Warden, Assistant Game Warden, Game Ranger, Game Forester, Game Guard, or to discharge any function of a Forest Officer under this Act or any rule made thereunder.” 12. The Legislature has consciously made a provision in the statute that the Forest Settlement Officer shall not be a Forest Officer (with exceptions). That is so because of the nature of the power exercised by the Forest Settlement Officer. The Legislature has consciously made a provision in the statute that the Forest Settlement Officer shall not be a Forest Officer (with exceptions). That is so because of the nature of the power exercised by the Forest Settlement Officer. Therefore, the wide proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Forest Settlement Officer cannot decide the issue by being a Government Officer himself is not borne out by the scheme of the Act. 13. The Forest Settlement Officer under Section 4(c) of the Act has power to determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by any person or over any land comprised within the limits of the notification. The said provision does not indicate as to which type of rights are excluded from the ambit of sub-section (c) of Section 4. Under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1961, the Forest Settlement Officer can issue notice to every known or reputed owner or occupier of any land for enquiry. Under Section 8 of the Act, the Forest Settlement Officer has to enquire into all claims made under Section 6 recording all statements. Section 9 of the Act of 1961 provides that for the purpose of such enquiry, the Forest Settlement Officer has the power to carry out survey, demarcate and make a map of the land and also has the powers of a Civil Court in the trial of suits. Section 10 of the Act deals with orders on closing the inquiry. When the inquiry is completed, the Forest Settlement Officer can pass an order specifying the particulars of such claim and admitting or rejecting it wholly or in part. 14. Section 10(1) of the Act of 1961 contemplates that the Forest Settlement Officer can pass an order admitting or rejecting the claim wholly or in part. Therefore, any claim made by an owner in respect of any land under the notification which can include the entire land, on enquiry, the Forest Settlement Officer can wholly admit the claim or wholly reject it. Section 10(2) of the Act of 1961 refers to the limited contingencies, so also sub-section (3). However, they deal with specific contingencies and do not take away the power of the Forest Settlement Officer to deal with a claim in respect of the entire property either admitting or rejecting the claim. Section 10(2) of the Act of 1961 refers to the limited contingencies, so also sub-section (3). However, they deal with specific contingencies and do not take away the power of the Forest Settlement Officer to deal with a claim in respect of the entire property either admitting or rejecting the claim. The scheme of the Act of 1961 is that the Forest Settlement Officer would act as a quasi-judicial authority before whom the State would be represented through the Forest Officer. The Forest Settlement Officer can allow a claim of the claimant in respect of the entire land wholly and against such order of the Forest Settlement Officer, the State Government through Forest Officer can file an appeal in the District Court. 15. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the redressal mechanism is not available under the Act to decide the issue that the land is not at the disposal of the State Government is wholly misconceived. Though the Appellant had narrated a long history of the land and has referred to various pending litigations to indicate intricacies, the sum and substance of the case of the Appellant is of asserting a right in respect of the land and nothing more. The contention that the Forest Settlement Officer can only consider limited types of rights and does not contemplate a case where the entire title of the State is being disputed is not borne out by the scheme of the Act which we have referred to above. 16. Once it is held that the case of the Appellant was within the parameters of Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Act of 1961, then it is for the Forest Settlement Officer to decide the claim. The Forest Settlement Officer who has the power of a Civil Court can pass orders even against the State Government. Section 11 of the Act of 1961 contemplates such a contingency. Section 11 provides for appeal from the order of the Settlement Officer. Section 11 reads thus: “11. Appeal from the Orders of Settlement Officer.- (1) Where a claim is rejected wholly or in part, the claimant may, within ninety days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the District Court in respect of such rejection only. The time taken for obtaining copies of the order appealed against shall be excluded in computing the period of ninety days. The time taken for obtaining copies of the order appealed against shall be excluded in computing the period of ninety days. (2) Whenever a claim is admitted in the first instance wholly or in part, a like appeal may be preferred on behalf of Government by the Forest Officer appointed under section 4, or other person generally or specially empowered by the Government in this behalf.” 17. Therefore, appeal is provided to the claimant under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 1961. An appeal is also provided under sub-section (2) to the Forest Officer on behalf of the Government, who would have attended the enquiry before the Forest Settlement Officer. Against the order of the District Court, appeal will lie to the High Court under Section 12A of the Act of 1961. The High Court can confirm or cancel the order of the District Court, set aside such order and remand the case to the District Court. Three-tier enquiry is contemplated under the Act of 1961 in respect of the rights claimed. First by the Forest Settlement Officer, second by the District Court and then by the High Court. 18. Therefore, even though the right claimed by the Appellant pertains to the entire land and to appreciate the claim of the Appellant historical background will have to be examined, these questions can also be considered under Section 11 of the Act by the District Court and in appeal by the High Court under Section 12A of the Act. We find no merit in the contention of the Appellant that the Appellant has no remedy under the Act of 1961 to put forth the challenge to the notification on the grounds raised. 19. In the case of State of Kerala and Others v. Cheriathy Joseph Parippil Eettathottathil and Others (judgment dated 10 January 2018 in MSA No.1 of 1981), the Division Bench had considered an appeal under Section 12A of the Act of 1961 from the judgment of the District Court declaring that the proposed notified lands are not liable to be declared as Reserved Forest. In that case, the Respondents/claimants had challenged the notification issued to declare certain areas as Reserved Forest. Claims were made challenging the rights of the Government. In that case, the Respondents/claimants had challenged the notification issued to declare certain areas as Reserved Forest. Claims were made challenging the rights of the Government. It was contended, as is being contended before us, that for land to be constituted as a Reserved Forest, the land must be at the disposal of the Government. The Forest Settlement Officer had declared the land as Reserve Forest and the Respondents therein did not have any right which was reversed by the District Court. Incidently in this case also, the claimants claimed to be members of royal family who had contended that the lands situated therein are “Thamathu” ( jenmam lands) and not liable to be notified as Reserved Forest. Documents and events from more than a hundred years ago were relied upon. The Division Bench in an appeal under Section 12A of the Act examined the case of the claimants therein in detail, including the documents produced and analysed the old records produced by the claimants in extenso, including the identity of the property. The reason for referring to the decision in the case of Cheriathy Joseph Parippil Eettathottathil and Others is that the Forest Settlement Officer, the District Court, and the High Court have considered questions similar to the one presented by the Appellant, treating it as a claim to rights in the subject land and questioning the competence of the State on the grounds that the lands are not at the disposal of the State Government. 20. Therefore, since substantive remedies of two appeals is provided under the statute itself, there is no reason why the Appellant should not have availed of these remedies. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not in error to conclude that the Petitioner had alternate remedies under the Act of 1961, hence the writ petition should not be entertained. 21. As a result, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs