IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 11382 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JAYAKUMAR,S/O.PARAMESWARA PILLAI, INDEEVARAM,KOLACHIRA,MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PREMKUMAR,S/O.PARAMESWARA PILLAI, SREEVALSOM,KOLACHIRA,MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASHOK KUMAR,S/O.PARAMESWARA PILLAI, KOUSTHUBHAM,KOLACHIRA,MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAJENDRAN,S/O.MADHAVA PANICKER, V.MATHA,MANCHADI,MOONGODU,PEYAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. PRASANNAKUMARI,W/O.RAJENDRAN,V.MATHA, MANCHADI,MOONGODU,PEYAD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 11382 of 2010(W) 4. PONNUKANI SADANANDAN,PACHAMALA THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,ELEVATTOM.P.O,NOW RESIDING AT AARUKANI MANNADI ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,KALIYAL VILLAGE,VILAVANCODE,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 5. GOWRI VAMAKSHI,PERUKIDATHU KANI, VAZHIYARIKATHU VEEDU,KALIYAL VILLAGE,AARUKANI.PO, VILAVANCODE,K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 6. PONNUKANI SASI,THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KADAYALUMOODU,AARUKANI.P.O,VILVANCODE,K.K.DISTRICT TAMIL NADU. 7. KOCHUKANI THANKAMMA,CHERUKIDATH KANI, ANAMUKHAM,AARUKANI.P.O,K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 8. KOCHUKANI SARASAMMA,VAZHIYARIKATHU VEEDU,KADALUMOODU,AARUKANI.P.O,NOW RESIDING AT CHERUKIDATH KANI-PARAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALIYAL VILLAGE, VILAVANCODE TALUK,K.K.DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU. 9. ARUVI KOCHU RANI,W/O.PONNUKANI, CHERUKIDATH KANI,PARAVILAKATHU VEEDU,KALIYAL VILLAGE,VILAVANCODE TALUK, K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 10. PONNUKANI MANIYAN KANI,S/O.PONNUKANI, CHAKAPARA KANI SETTLEMENT,KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, KANIKUZHY.P.O,AMBOORI VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. ARAVIND BABU. R7 AND R8 BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH FOR R7 & 8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11382 of 2010(W) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF OTTI AND KUZHIKANAM DEED NO. 904 /1950- DATED 01.04.1950 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF SAQLE DEED NOI. 640/1959 DATED 13.02.1959 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2782/63 D ATE D 19.03.1963 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2692/59 DATED 08.07.1959 EXT.P5 l: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 5937/65 DATED 29.12.1965 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2865/94 DA TE D 24.08.1994 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 4574/95 DATED 20.12.1995 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 1473/91 DATED 05.06.1991 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED DATED 09.07. 2008 EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 4410/94 DATED 15.12.1994 EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 4411/94 DATED 15.12.1994 EXT.P12 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.03.1996 OF 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P12(a) : TYPE WRITTEN COPY OF EXHIBIT P12 EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF POROC EEDINGS NO. C4-33753/96 DATED 01.06.1996 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 08.07.2009 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B17-46835/08 DATED 26.12.2009 OF 1 ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B17-46835/08 DATED 26.12.2009 OF 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. WP(C).No. 11382 of 2010(W) EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B17-46835/08 DATED 26.12.2009 OF 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P19 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B17-46835/08 DATED 26.12.2009 OF 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P20 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B17-46835/08 DATED 26.12.2009 OF 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P21 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.98 IN O.S. 596/95 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURA M EXT.P22 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT D A TED 31.05.2004 IN O.S. 2166/00 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-I. EXT.P23 : TRUE COPY OF ACT 13 OF 1975 AND THE RULES FRAMED THERE UNDER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 11382 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers: a) Call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibits P12, P16, P17, P18, P19 and P20 orders and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. b) grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated in paragraph 3 and 4 as follows: “3. It is humbly submitted that the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration on Alienated Lands) Act 1975 was superceded by the Kerala Restriction on Transfer By and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999. The Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment dated 21.07.2007 in case No.CA-7079/01 2 and connected cases has instructed the State Government to proceed with the 1999 Act. Based on this the Government have issued directions accordingly. The District Collector has remanded all the cases to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reopen the cases and consider the petitions as afre sh as per the provisions of the Act 1999. It is pertinent to note that many of the cases are at its hearing state and fresh orders will be issued on merit. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners in the above writ petition can approach and adduce evidences before the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh disposal as per the Act of 1999. In the above circumstances the above writ petition filed by the courter petitioners therein before the 2nd respondent, challenging the orders of the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent, is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed with the direction to the petitioners as well as respondents 4-10 to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, a competent authority to pass orders afresh on merits as per the provisions of the Act of 1999.“ 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to pursue the remedy as pointed out by the second respondent, by approaching the RDO. 3 In the said circumstance, after hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving the rights and liberties of the petitioners to pursue the alternate remedy by approaching the second respondent, as aforesaid. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk