(W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017 and 13488 of 2019)
These two writ petitions are filed by the respective
petitioners seeking to challenge certain proceedings taken
under the provisions of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by
and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1999’).
2. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017 are
stated to be the children of one deceased Chathamooppan,
who is stated to have made an application under the
provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on the
Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act,
1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1975’), pointing
out that he had originally possessed around 12 acres of land
in Survey Nos.290 and 292 of Kottathara Village; but were
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
transferred to the party respondents somewhere during
1964 to 1990 under the guise of various sale deeds. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, by Ext.P2 order
dated 28.08.1995 in TLA Case No.1340/1987, found that
the case setup by the deceased was correct and hence,
directed the party respondents in this writ petition to deliver
possession of the land to the applicant and his brother
within 30 days of service of the order, further directing the
applicant and his brother to pay compensation under
Section 11(1) of the Act, 1975. The petitioners contend that
the order at Ext.P2 has become final, since the same has
not been challenged by anyone. They point out that the
deceased and his brother were impoverished and hence
they could not pay the compensation, on account of which
they sought loans from the Government for remitting the
compensation ordered to be paid by the Revenue Divisional
Officer. They contend that they took possession of the land
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
and in support of the afore contention, they also seek to
rely on the photographs at Ext.P8. But, the petitioners
further contend that the 3rd respondent suo motu reviewed
the order at Ext.P2 and issued the order at Ext.P3 dated
10.12.2010 without notice to the petitioners, extending the
benefit of the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, 1999. The
order at Ext.P3 was challenged by the party respondents,
as evidenced by Ext.P4 appeal memorandum. The District
Collector- 2nd respondent, disposed of the appeal by Ext.P5
order, in the manner stated thereunder. It is challenging the
orders at Exts.P5 and P3 issued as above by the 2nd and 3rd
respondents, respectively, that the petitioners have filed
W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017. The petitioners have also sought
a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from
the land covered by Ext.P2 order.
[ad_1]
Source link