The court affirmed the right of property purchasers to contest jurisdictional issues before statutory authorities, emphasizing a fair hearing process.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking to challenge Ext.P5 order issued by the District Collector, rejecting an appeal filed against Ext.P3 order issued by the 2^nd respondent herein.

2. The 1^st petitioner states that he purchased 45 cents of property and the 2^nd petitioner purchased an extent of 10 cents from the husband of the 3^rd respondent on 31.03.1986, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. According to the petitioners, they were utilising the afore properties from 1986 onwards for conducting a hollow brick manufacturing unit. On the basis of an application filed under the provisions of Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act , 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the assignor of the properties as above, the 2^nd respondent issued the order at Ext.P3 dated 30.06.2010, directing the sale effected as above to the petitioners herein as hit by the provisions of the Act. Though the petitioners have preferred an appeal against the afore order, the District Collector having rejected the same by Ext.P5 order, the petitioners have instituted the captioned writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri.Neeraj Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, as well as Sri.K.K.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the party respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the properties purchased by the petitioners were not “agricultural land” and, therefore, the Act itself would not apply to the case at hand. At the same time, Sri.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the party respondents, seeks to rely on the averments contained in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by them to state that the properties were “agriculture in nature”, and therefore, the transfer was hit by the provisions of the statute.

5. In any event, this Court notices that the afore issue has not been raised or decided by the authorities under the Act. However, since the afore issue is a jurisdictional one, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are to be permitted to raise the afore contention before the statutory authorities.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P5. The District Collector is directed to consider the appeals filed by the petitioners afresh, with specific reference to the contentions raised by the petitioners as above. The petitioners would be entitled to file supplementary arguments with respect to their contentions as above, before the District Collector within a period of six weeks from today. The District Collector to pass fresh orders as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five months thereafter.

Needless to say that the petitioners as well as respondents

3 and 4 are to be granted an effective opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Sd/-