IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10943 of 2007(C) PETITIONER(S): N.T.GEORGE, S/O GEORGE, NELLINIKKUN THADATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAND. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MEENAKSHI, W/O. LATE KAMBIAN, NAYKOLLIKUNNU COLONY, P.O. VAZHAVATTA, NOOLPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, WAYANAD. 5. BABU, S/O. LATE KAMBIAN, DO. DO. 6. AJI, S/O. LATE KAMBIAN, DO. DO. 7. VIJI, D/O. LATE KAMBIAN, DO. DO. 8. BIJU, S./O. LATE KAMBIAN, DO. DO. 9. VINU, S/O. LATE KAMBIAN, DO. DO. 10. VINOY, S/O. LATE KAMBIAN, DO. DO. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 10943/2007. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 30-3-1996. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 12-4-1996. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 25-7-1997. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 3185/1994 & 3186/1994. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 10943 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner in occupation of 13 cents of land in R.S No. 633/1A1A of Muttil amsom and desom of Vythiri Taluk. The petitioner purchased the property from one Ullattil Ullahannan in the year 1990. One Koleri, as a member of a scheduled tribe, filed an application before the 1st respondent claiming to be the original owner of the land entitled to restoration of the land under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975. That was allowed by Ext. P2 order. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by Ext. P3 order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts. P2 and P3 orders. 2. The present contention of the petitioner is based on Section 5 of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, which reads as follows: “5. Certain transfers to be invalid:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, any transfer of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe, effected on or after the 1st day of January, 1960, and before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be invalid: Provided that nothing in this section shall render invalid any transfer of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe effected during the aforesaid period and the extent of which does not exceed two hectares. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or other authority, in cases where the land involved in such transfer is used for agricultural purposes, the transferee thereof shall be entitled to retain in his possession the said land upto an extend of two hectares which shall be demarcated by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order and in the manner as may be prescribed.” W.P.C. No. 10943/2007. -: 2 :- According to the petitioner, in view of the proviso to sub section (1) of the said Section, the petitioner's property comprised of only 13 cents is exempted from the purview of the provisions of sub section (1). 3. I have heard the parties. 4. In view of the fact that the property involved is only 13 cents, the petitioner's case is clearly covered by the proviso to Section 5 of the 1999 Act. Therefore, he is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, Exts.P2 and P3 are quashed. However, the matter does not end there. As far as the legal representatives of Sri. Koleri are concerned, who has been impleaded as additional respondents in this writ petition, under Section 6 of the Act, they are entitled to claim allotment of the land from the Government. Therefore, in respect of that claim, I leave open the right of the additional respondents 4 to 10 to claim allotment of land under Section 6 of the 1999 Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/