IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1228 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4831/2008 Dated 11/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- THEYI, D/O.LATE MUNDAN, PANNIKUZHI VEEDU, MANGADU, MUTTIL, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1228 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4831/2008 dated 11/02/2008, petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this writ appeal. The appellant had filed an application before the competent authority under the provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act 1975, hereinafter for the sake of brevity and clarity referred to as 'the Act 1975'. In the application so filed, the reasons assigned by the applicant for permission to sell the lands which would come under the definition of the land under the Act 1975 was that she intends to sell the immovable property and then settle the liability of her children due to various financial institutions. 2. The claim of the petitioner is rejected by the competent authority by Ext.P10 order. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority, the petitioner was before this Court. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition primarily on two grounds; firstly that the authority who is competent to grant permission, should be WA.1228/2008. : 2 : subjectively and objectively satisfied with the claim of the applicant and secondly that the petitioner's children also have some properties and therefore the petitioner need not have to sell her lands to discharge the loan liability of her children. Further, the learned Judge has noticed, that, the competent authority, that is, the Tahsildar, in his report has stated that the petitioner has two other items of properties in two Villages of Vythiri Taluk and the applicant had no other liability of her own. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. 5. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge is before us in this writ appeal. 6. For the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal we need to notice Section 4 of the Act 1975. The said provisions reads as under: “4. Restriction on transfer:--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, any transfer effected by a member of a Scheduled Tribe, of immovable property possessed, enjoyed or owned by him, on or after the commencement of this Act to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe, without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority, shall be invalid.” WA.1228/2008. : 3 : 7. The section commences with a non obstante clause. The first limb of the said section imposes a total prohibition of the transfer of lands which would fall under the Act 1975. However a discretion is granted to the competent authority under the Act to permit a person who belongs to Scheduled Tribe to effect transfer of the lands for valid reasons. 8. In the instant case the petitioner had approached the authority for permission to sell the lands which belongs to her. Admittedly she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community. Without the prior permission of the competent authority she is restrained by the Act in effecting any sale of the immovable property which belongs to her. 9. In the application filed, the only reason that the petitioner assigned before the competent authority was that she intends to sell her immovable properties only to discharge the loan liabilities of her children. The competent authority is of the view that for the aforesaid purpose she need not have to grant permission. The findings and conclusions reached by the competent authority is endorsed by the learned single Judge. In our view, to discharge the loan liability of her children who also own sufficient immovable properties, the petitioner need not have to sell her land which would come under the provisions of the Act 1975. 10. Having gone through the orders passed by the competent WA.1228/2008. : 4 : authority and also the orders passed by the learned single Judge, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid orders. Therefore interference with the said orders is not called for. Accordingly, Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and we do so. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an/dk.