IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4831 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THEYI, D/O,LATE MUNDAN, PANNIKUZHI VEEDU MANGADU, MUTTIL, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD 2. TAHSILDAR,MANANTHAVADY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 4831 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10. Petitioner made an application under sec.4 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975. By Ext.P10 order the previous consent sought for by the petitioner in terms of sec.4 of the Act has been declined by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner has no dispute that the land in question is one to which the provisions of the aforesaid Act applies and that previous consent as contemplated in sec.4 is necessary. The ground raised by the petitioner for seeking previous consent are that she wanted to help her children to discharge their liabilities that are due to the bank. Petitioner has produced Exts.P4 to P7 in order to show that her children had liabilities to a bank. 2. What I notice is that the records produced by the petitioner itself show that the petitioner and her children are having their own properties and it is not understandable as to why the petitioner WP(C) 4831/08 Page numbers wants to dispose of this particular property itself to liquidate the liability. The idea is to dispose of the land which is situated with reserve forests on three sides and river on the other side to resort owners. The purpose of the Act being restoration of possession of lands and for restricting transfer of lands belonging to Scheduled Tribes, I think Ext.P10 order declining permission to the petitioner is well justified. Ext.P10 does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-