ROY SEBASTIAN Vs. SUB COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, IDUKKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent - the Sub Collector, which revised the order of the 5th respondent as per Ext.P4, exercising the powers conferred under Sec. 6(3) of the Kerala Scheduled Tribe (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act,1975 ').

(2.) The petitioner herein is the owner of ten cents of property in Sy.No.161/1 (Re.Sy.No.204/4) in Block No.46 of Kanjikuzhi Village as per sale deed No.1753/2008 SRO Arakulam dtd. 29/8/2008. The petitioner obtained the said property from one Baiju M.B., who obtained property from the 6th respondent as per Ext.P3 dtd. 23/7/1996.

(3.) The issue arises when the sister of the 6th respondent, Jancy Kuruvila, the 7th respondent herein approached the 1st respondent under Sec. 4 and Sec. 6(3) of the Act, 1975 challenging Ext.P4 order whereby permission has been granted by the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent for alienating ten cents of land belonging to her in order to settle the liability with the Kanjikuzhi Cooperative Bank under Rule 31 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Rules (for short 'the Rules '). The case projected by the 7th respondent before the 1st respondent is to restore the possession and enjoyment to an extent of total 1/23/90 Hectars of land comprised in Sy. No.204/3 and 204/4 of Kanjikuzhi Village in Thodupuzha Taluk. Such contention was raised in the premise that Sri.Jose Panamthanam, the original purchaser of the land from the 6th respondent willfully grabbed ten cents of land making a document when her sister was not in a position to enter into a contract, and then by way of transfer, the present Thandaper holder, i.e., the petitioner herein had purchased the land in question.