IMPORTANT POINT
The District Collector lacks authority to suo motu review prior orders without proper legal basis, necessitating adherence to procedural requirements in land restoration cases.

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 5^th respondent. The 3^rd respondent by order dated 12.10.1995 directed the 5^th 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 5^th respondent. Petitioners grandfather Maruthan died in 1988, but the property was not restored inspite of Ext.P1 order. Pursuant to the commencement of Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1999), the 3^rd respondent took steps to reconsider the matter and notice was issued to the parties. On 16.12.2009 the petitioners' father Kadan appeared and stated that his father Maruthan had given on lease 6 acres of land to Thayappa Udayar and wanted the restoration of the same. The 5^th respondent was arrayed as opposite party, but she did not appear. On an enquiry conducted by the Agali Village Officer, it is revealed that the 5^th respondent transferred the property to the 4^th respondent and the 4^th respondent was heard on 24.1.2014. He claimed transfer of land belonging to the petitioners as per sale deed No.560/97 of SRO, Agali from the 5^th respondent and her children having an extent of 3.67 acres and 2.05 acres from un-surveyed land. As per Ext.P2 order since the transfer of land belonging to the petitioners by 5^th respondent to the 4^th respondent herein is against Act, 1999, he was directed to give back 5.72 acres in Survey Nos.343/1 and 343/3 of Agali Village to the tribes. The 4^th respondent challenged Ext.P2 in appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent set aside Ext.P2 as per Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3, according to 2^nd respondent as per sale deed No.1472/66 and 2895/71, Maruthan and his son Kadan had transferred 3.67 acres in Survey No.343/1 and 2.05 acres in Survey No.343/3 totaling 5.72 acres to Thayappa Udayar, and found that as alienation above 5 acres is illegal, allowed the appeal by retaining 5 acres to the 4^th respondent under Section 8 of the Act and restoring the excess 72 cents to Kadan, father of petitioners directing payment of compensation to the 4^th respondent. It is challenging that part of Ext.P3 to hand over excess 72 cents the 4^th respondent has filed WP(C) No.10176/2016. Challenging Ext.P3 petitioners also preferred WP(C) No.22453/2020. Both these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of the same by Ext.P8 common judgment setting aside Ext.P3 order of the 2^nd respondent with a direction to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders taking into account the observations made by the court in the common judgment. After the remand, the matter was reconsidered by the 2^nd respondent and as per Ext.P9 order directed retention of 5 acres of land with the 4^th respondent and the remaining 72 cents with the petitioners as earlier decided in Ext.P3. It is challenging Ext.P9 order that the present writ petition has been filed. Aggrieved by the finding in Ext.P9 whereby allotting 72 cents of land to the petitioners, the 4^th respondent has preferred WP(C) No.15546/2022.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.31047/202