IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the burden of proving a valid transfer under the relevant Acts lies with the applicants, and failure to do so negates their claims for restoration of possession.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

These four writ petitions pertain to the dispute as regards certain properties, which allegedly attract the provisions under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 31 of 1975’) as well as the provisions under the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 12 of 1999’).

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions, as culled out from W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 are as under:

Vast extents of land were held by Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair in Jenm right. M/s. P.C. George, P.C. Mathew, P.C. Abraham and P.C. Thomas (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C. brothers’) obtained tenancy rights and possession over some of the properties originally held by Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair. The properties so obtained by P.C. brothers were falling under Survey No.913/1 of Sholayur Village. P.C. brothers obtained purchase certificates as regards the properties aforementioned separately, which devolved on their legal heirs upon their death. Sri.Paul George (the petitioner in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 and Sri.Shaju (petitioner in W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017) purchased the afore properties from the legal heirs of M/s. P.C. George and others during the year 1995. On 28.04.1995, Ext.P3, a partition deed was entered into among the petitioners, Sri. Paul George and Sri. Shaju and they took possession of the separate lands earmarked for each other. The partition deed at Ext.P3, is also with reference to the properties falling under Survey No.913/1 of Sholayur Village, Mannarkkad Taluk.

3. One Sri.Marimooppan and Sri.Vazha (hereinafter referred to as ‘applicants’) presented applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of Act 31 of 1975, essentially pointing out that the properties held by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 and W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017, Paul George and Shaju respectively, were originally in their possession and therefore, they are entitled to restoration of the possession since P.C. brothers had forcefully taken possession of such properties from them. Copies of such applications are produced as Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. The said applications stood numbered as TLA Nos.2058/1987 and 2059/1987. In the meantime, Act 31 of 1975 stood repealed by Act 12 of 1999.

4. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 order on Exts.P4 and P5 applications holding that the properties were originally in the possession of the applicants and therefore, hit by the provisions of Act 12 of 1999. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal before the 1st respondent herein by the petitioner.

5. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 order finding that:

i. The applicants in their applications had not noted any survey numbers as regards the property concerned.

ii. The report submitted by the Village Officer, Sholayur shows that in Survey No.913/2, the property concerned is having an extent of 20 acres, whereas reference to the A and B register discloses that as against Survey No.913/2, the extent was only 3.35 hectares.

iii. In the statement given by Marimooppan before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottapallam on 16.11.2010, the survey number mentioned is 917/1; that too as against 10 acres of property.

iv. The Taluk surveyor has reported that the applicants were claiming the properties falling under the Survey No.913/1 which is in possession of Sri.Shaji, S/o.Thomas and Paul George, S/o.George.

v. The claim presented by the applicants does not mention about the properties held by K.Kunjumon.

vi. Philip does not hold any property in the afore survey numbers.

On account of the above reasons, Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent stood set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration at the hands of the 2nd respondent.

6. The 2nd respondent, thereafter, issued Ext.P9 order, essentially arriving at the same findings as in Ext.P6. The furthe