IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26439 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. MATHEW, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS. 2. ANNAMMA, W/O.MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT KUZHIYUZHATHIL VEEDU, THAVALAM, AGALI VILLAGE, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM. 3. SMT.CHELLY, W/O.LEKSHMANA, THAVALM, AGALI VILLAGE, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PINCODE-678 581. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 26439 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner purchased an extent of 45 cents of land and the 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of 10 cents of land from the husband of the 3rd respondent on 31.03.1986 by separate registered sale deeds registered before the Mannarkad Sub Registrar Office. The 3rd respondent and her husband belong to a scheduled tribe community. The 2nd respondent initiated action against the petitioners under the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, alleging that the late husband of the 3rd respondent had submitted an application for restoration of lands covered by Exhibit P1 and P1(a). The matter was posted for hearing on 15.12.2009. The petitioners allege that the 3rd respondent appeared before the 2nd respondent on that day and submitted that her husband had not filed any application for W.P.(C).No. 26439 of 2010 2 restoration as alleged by the 2nd respondent. She also submitted that her husband had received the prevailing market price for the land for executing Exhibit P1 and P1(a) sale deeds. She further submitted that she does not want the land back from the petitioners. Despite the same, the 2nd respondent by Exhibit P4 order directed restoration of the land to the 3rd respondent. The petitioners have filed Exhibit P5 appeal before the first respondent against Exhibit P4 order. The petitioners seek a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 appeal expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the facts and circumstance of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till final orders are passed on Exhibit P5 further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioners and W.P.(C).No. 26439 of 2010 3 the 3rd respondent shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard while passing orders on Exhibit P5. It would be open to the petitioners and 3rd respondent to place further pleadings before the first respondent if they so wish, which shall also be considered by the 1st respondent. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. rkc