PRAKASHAN Vs. DAMODARAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire dispute revolves round survey No. 58/16 and 19 of Panavally Village of Cherthala Taluk. The appellant claims to be a member of Ulladan Tribe coming in the list of Scheduled Tribe of Kerala State. One Smt. Thakamma, mother of appellant acquired in all 26 1/2 cents of land. She said to have sold 10 cents of this property to one Achamma Lekshmi and another bit of land to Damodaran and Achamma Lekshmi jointly. Subsequently, she filed application No. 8/87 on 30.11.1987 before the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, 'RDO') for restoration of 26 1/2 cents of land. Land came to be ordered to be returned by order of RDO dated 05.11.1990 subject to deposit of Rs. 3,700/- as compensation for the improvements carried on in the land and the same came to be deposited. However, in the meanwhile, Mr. Damodaran filed appeal No. 2 of 1990 before the District Collector, Alappuzha challenging the order of RDO. Said appeal came to be rejected by order dated 31.08.1991. This came to be challenged in O.P. No. 12504 of 1991. The said Original Petition came to be dismissed by judgment dated 06.02.1997. This came to be challenged in W.A. No. 750 of 1997 wherein the matter came to be remanded by virtue of the judgment of Division Bench directing reconsideration of the matter after issuing notices to the parties.

(2.) The District Collector heard the appeal as per the order of remand and again remanded back the matter to RDO to dispose of the same within one month. This order came to be challenged by Mr. Damodaran in O.P. No. 1149 of 1997. Original Petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to consider the matter within three months afresh with notice to the parties. The District Collector considered the matter on 16.02.1999 and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, Mr. Damodaran filed O.P. No. 6844 of 1999 invoking the provisions, of Section 5(2) of the Kerala Restriction of Transfer by Restoration of land to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1999 (for short "the Act").This order of the District Collector came to be quashed by the learned Single Judge in the Original Petition. Against the same, the present appeal is filed by one of the sons of late Thankamma.

(3.) According to the appellant, if the sale deeds under which respondents 1 and 2 purchased lands were held invalid, the direction to respondents 1 and 2 to restore possession of property to the writ petitioners was erroneous. The very contest by respondents 1 and 2 is on flimsy grounds invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on more than one occasion. Only in the third round of litigation in O.P. No. 6844 of 1999 the learned Judge quashed Ext.P6 erroneously applying the provisions of Act 12 of 1999 without considering the fact that the possession of the said property no more rests with respondents 1 and 2.