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.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

1. These two writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners seeking to challenge certain proceedings taken under the provisions of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act, 1999’).

2. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017 are stated to be the children of one deceased Chathamooppan, who is stated to have made an application under the provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on the Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act, 1975’), pointing out that he had originally possessed around 12 acres of land in Survey Nos.290 and 292 of Kottathara Village; but were transferred to the party respondents somewhere during 1964 to 1990 under the guise of various sale deeds. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, by Ext.P2 order dated 28.08.1995 in TLA Case No.1340/1987, found that the case setup by the deceased was correct and hence, directed the party respondents in this writ petition to deliver possession of the land to the applicant and his brother within 30 days of service of the order, further directing the applicant and his brother to pay compensation under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1975. The petitioners contend that the order at Ext.P2 has become final, since the same has not been challenged by anyone. They point out that the deceased and his brother were impoverished and hence they could not pay the compensation, on account of which they sought loans from the Government for remitting the compensation ordered to be paid by the Revenue Divisional Officer. They contend that they took possession of the land and in support of the afore contention, they also seek to rely on the photographs at Ext.P8. But, the petitioners further contend that the 3^rd respondent suo motu reviewed the order at Ext.P2 and issued the order at Ext.P3 dated 10.12.2010 without notice to the petitioners, extending the benefit of the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act, 1999. The order at Ext.P3 was challenged by the party respondents, as evidenced by Ext.P4 appeal memorandum. The District Collector- 2^nd respondent, disposed of the appeal by Ext.P5 order, in the manner stated thereunder. It is challenging the orders at Exts.P5 and P3 issued as above by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, respectively, that the petitioners have filed W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the land covered by Ext.P2 order.

3. The 7^th respondent in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017 has filed W.P(C) No.13488 of 2019, contending that he is the absolute owner of the landed property in Survey No. 290/1 of Kottathara Village covered by Ext.P1 sale deed No.702/1993 of SRO, Agali, executed in his favour, that tax was also being remitted in respect of the afore property, and that proceedings are being taken against the afore property by respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of a complaint filed by the 5^th respondent in the writ petition, that the provisions of the Act, 1999, would not apply to the property in question, etc.

4. I have heard Sri K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017, Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in the aforesaid writ petition and for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13488 of 2019, as well as Sri.M.K.Robin Raj, the learned Special Government Pleader (SC/ST) for the official respondents.

5. Sri. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017, would contend that:

i. The proceedings under the Act, 1975, as evidenced by Ext.P2, having become final, the 3^rd respondent did not have any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1999.

ii. The Act, 1999, did not contain any provisions for taking suo motu steps for cancelling Ext.P2 order issued under the Act, 1975.

iii. Ext.P3 order has been issued under t