IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1028 of 2004() ------------------------------ AA.75/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS) KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/ALLICANT ---------------------------- KOLOTH VALAPPIL K.V.MAMMAD, URUPPUMKUTTY, ARALAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS IN A.A.75/2000 ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP. NO.1028/2004 ORDER ON IA. NO.2156/2005 IN CRP. NO. 1028/2004 DISMISSED 01.01.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE ts M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.1028 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority(Land Reforms), Kannur in A.A.No.75 of 2000. It was an appeal preferred by the State and the Forest Department together against the order of the issuance of a certificate of purchase in favour of the civil revision petitioner before this Court. The appellate authority condoned the delay and found that since the declaration was notified in the Kerala Gazette dated 8.7.1977 with respect to this property and if the respondent has any grievance, he should have filed objection to the notification and get it redressed through proper forums. Therefore it allowed the appeal. It is against that decision, the present revision is preferred. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department would contend that since the area involved in the case is covered by a notification dated 8.7.1977, if at all there is any remedy for the party, he has to approach the Forest Tribunal for appropriate relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he had been issued a certificate of CRP1028/2004 -:2:- purchase under Section 72(k) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which is a conclusive proof of tenancy which is prior to the date of the alleged gazette notification and therefore the approach of the appellate authority is erroneous. The question is whether on the date of the commencement of the Kerala Private Forest(Vesting & Assignment)Act, 1971 the disputed property is a forest and whether it has vested in the Government . If it is the question to be decided then Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest(Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 will come into play. Learned counsel would contend that the notification does not take in this property and it has not been proved. Therefore it is desirable that the petitioner is given an opportunity to establish his case before the appellate authority. I make it very clear that the appellate authority shall also consider the question whether it has got the jurisdiction to try the case after hearing the department as well as the petitioner. Needless to say that in support of their respective contentions both parties can adduce and produce oral and documentary evidence before the appellate authority. Thereafter the appellate authority shall consider about its jurisdiction and its entitlement to proceed further with the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law. CRP1028/2004 -:3:- Parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 11.2.2008. CR.P. is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-