CHANDRAN KANNIKKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Tribe. He owns 6.12 acres of property. For various reasons, such as finding money for the marriage of his daughters, paying off debts due from him to banks etc., he wants to sell that property. But, Section 4 of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, stipulates that he can sell the property only with the previous consent in writing of the competent authority under the said Act. Under the Act, the competent authority prescribed is the District Collector. THE petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation before the Minister for Development of SC/ST in the matter. Ext.P2 report was forwarded by the Director of SC/ST Development to the Government reporting that 4 acres, out of the 6.12 acres can be permitted to be sold and the balance 2 acres and 12 cents can be permitted to be sold after the petitioner purchases other properties. By Ext.P3, the Government directed the District Collector to issue N.O.C. to the petitioner to sell his property. Since no action was taken thereon, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.6889/2007 before this Court, in which, this Court held that the District Collector being the competent authority under the Act, the Government or anybodyelse cannot direct the District Collector to exercise his powers under Section 4 in a particular manner and, therefore, the District Collector is to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 4 independently without reference to the opinion of the Government in the matter. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P11 order has been passed by the District Collector permitting the petitioner to sell 1 acre out of the 6.12 acres. THE petitioner is aggrieved by the same.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, sale of 1 acre would not fetch enough funds for settling all his debts. He further submits that while passing orders, the District Collector did not take into account the report of the Director of SC/ST Development and also other documents, which are relevant regarding the issue. The petitioner particularly submits that before passing Ext.P11 order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner submits that the District Collector may be directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard both sides, in view of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Collector may be directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, I am inclined to direct the District Collector to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent-District Collector to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. For this purpose, I quash Ext.P11 order.