Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON
Rangan S/o Chathamooppan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
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 orde
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 District Collector lacks authority to suo motu review prior orders without proper legal basis, necessitating adherence to procedural requirements in land restoration cases.
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 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.
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 statutory entitlement to compensation under the Act must be recognized, irrespective of the regulations not being in effect.
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
