Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
Rangaswami S/o. Kadan (Late) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the very same order passed by the District Collector bearing No.DCPKD/9022/2020-LRG3 dated 24.03.2022 and therefore both the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
WP(C) No.31047 of 2022
2. It is averred that an extent of 4 acres in Survey No.343/1 and 1.72 acres in Survey No.343/3 of Agali Village originally belonged to petitioners' grandfather by name Maruthan, who obtained it from 'Mannarkkad Mooppilstanam' under 'verumpattam'. Petitioners father along with the adjoining tribal land owner Nanjan preferred TLA 244/87 and 208/87 respectively for restoration of land under Section 6(2) of the then Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction of Transfer of Land and Restoration of Alienated Land Act), 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1975) against the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent by order dated 12.10.1995 directed the 5th respondent to deliver the possession of 5 acres of land to Maruthan and 2.5 acres of land to Odiyan Rangan within a period of 30 days subject to payment of compensation to the 5th respondent. Petitioners grandfather Maruthan died in 1988, but the property was not restored inspite o
The District Collector lacks authority to suo motu review prior orders without proper legal basis, necessitating adherence to procedural requirements in land restoration cases.
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 affirmed the right of property purchasers to contest jurisdictional issues before statutory authorities, emphasizing a fair hearing process.
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.
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.
Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer limited by Sec.27A(11) of the Act; non-compliance does not apply as conditions were met.
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....
A government order on property transaction under Section 120A of the K.L.R. Act found unsustainable due to lack of ownership basis.
The court ruled that prior permissions regarding land use are limited and require statutory application for any changes in tenure, reaffirming the need for compliance with land laws.
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
