1. A not so commonly applied Statute, but one which has portentous amplitude, in social engineering imperatives and social justice endeavours, is involved in this case. The Act called into focus herein is the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act').

2. The preambular mandate of this Act is “to provide for restricting the transfer of lands by members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and for the restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members and for matters connected therewith”. This Act has come into force with effect from 24.01.1986 and is a successor to the earlier Act “the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (31 of 1975)”, which had been brought into effect on 01.01.1982. However, consequent to the enactment of Act 31 of 75, several proceedings came to be initiated before the various Revenue Divisional Officers, for restoration of possession of tribal lands from non-tribal alienees and attempts to evict them created serious social problems with multi-faceted dimensions. It was noticed that many of the non-tribal alienees had no other land and that when they were evicted, they themselves would become landless and would thus cause a serious threat to law and order. It was to harmonize the interests of the tribals and that of the non-tribal alienees that this Act was brought into effect retrospectively from 24.01.1986, recognising the emergent need to protect small and marginal non-tribal transferees and to re-convey the extent of land in excess of 2 hectares back to the tribal transferers.

3. A look at the most vital facts involved in this case would first be apposite:

4. The disputations in this case revolve around an extent of 2.10 acres of land comprised of in old Re.Sy.No.556/IAIAIA B1A9 of the Panamaram Village. While additional respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7, who are the legal heirs of the original 4th respondent-Smt. Lakshmi, who is now deceased, claim that they are in de facto and de jure possession of the property, the petitioner alleges that the afore-mentioned Lakshmi had trespassed into the property using force, in the year 1997.

5. The genesis of the proceedings in this case is that when the father of the afore-mentioned Lakshmi, Late Darappan, applied to the District Collector for restoration of the above extent of land in the year 1987, which, he claimed had been illegally retained by the petitioner herein at that time, by invoking the provisions under Section 7(3) of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act').

6. The specific contention of Darappan was that this extent of property was in his ownership and possession and that he had earlier allowed the petitioner to carry on cultivation in tapioca thereon under an oral lease but that the petitioner, thereafter, refused to return the property to him. On such assertion, a petition was made before the District Collector seeking that the said land be restored to the afore-mentioned Darappan under the prescriptions of the Act.

7. It transpires that Darappan died pending this application but that the competent authority issued an order in the year 1996 allowing the said application. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the District Collector by filing a statutory appeal, who allowed it, constraining the aforementioned Lakshmi, the daughter of Darappan, to file a writ petition before this Court, numbered as W.P.(C)No.26706 of 2010, which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment. In the said judgment, this Court found that Darappan had died by then and since Lakshmi had not been heard by the District Collector before the appellate order was issued, directions were given to the District Collector to reconsider the matter and take a decision afresh, in terms of law. This finally led to Ext.P8 being issued by the District Collector, wherein