Back
HARISANKAR V. MENON
Shaju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To Government, Revenue Department – Respondent
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.1
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.
The provisions of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 cannot invalidate concluded proceedings under the earlier statute.
The court ruled that the Sub Collector exceeded jurisdiction by revising an order based on an omitted rule, emphasizing the need to adhere to legislative intent under the Act.
Title to immovable property must be established through proper evidence in civil courts, and summary proceedings cannot determine such rights.
Point of law : in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted la....
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.
Land once vested in the state cannot be reconveyed to the original owner unless specific legal conditions are met and public purpose is no longer required.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
