JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. These four writ petitions pertain to the dispute as regards certain properties, which allegedly attract the provisions under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 31 of 1975’) as well as the provisions under the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 12 of 1999’). 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions, as culled out from W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 are as under: Vast extents of land were held by Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair in Jenm right. M/s. P.C. George, P.C. Mathew, P.C. Abraham and P.C. Thomas (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C. brothers’) obtained tenancy rights and possession over some of the properties originally held by Mannarkkad Mooppil Nair. The properties so obtained by P.C. brothers were falling under Survey No.913/1 of Sholayur Village. P.C. brothers obtained purchase certificates as regards the properties aforementioned separately, which devolved on their legal heirs upon their death. Sri.Paul George (the petitioner in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 and Sri.Shaju (petitioner in W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017) purchased the afore properties from the legal heirs of M/s. P.C. George and others during the year 1995. On 28.04.1995, Ext.P3, a partition deed was entered into among the petitioners, Sri. Paul George and Sri. Shaju and they took possession of the separate lands earmarked for each other. The partition deed at Ext.P3, is also with reference to the properties falling under Survey No.913/1 of Sholayur Village, Mannarkkad Taluk. 3. One Sri.Marimooppan and Sri.Vazha (hereinafter referred to as ‘applicants’) presented applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of Act 31 of 1975, essentially pointing out that the properties held by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 and W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017, Paul George and Shaju respectively, were originally in their possession and therefore, they are entitled to restoration of the possession since P.C. brothers had forcefully taken possession of such properties from them. Copies of such applications are produced as Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. The said applications stood numbered as TLA Nos.2058/1987 and 2059/1987. In the meantime, Act 31 of 1975 stood repealed by Act 12 of 1999. 4. Copies of such applications are produced as Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. The said applications stood numbered as TLA Nos.2058/1987 and 2059/1987. In the meantime, Act 31 of 1975 stood repealed by Act 12 of 1999. 4. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 order on Exts.P4 and P5 applications holding that the properties were originally in the possession of the applicants and therefore, hit by the provisions of Act 12 of 1999. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal before the 1st respondent herein by the petitioner. 5. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 order finding that: i. The applicants in their applications had not noted any survey numbers as regards the property concerned. ii. The report submitted by the Village Officer, Sholayur shows that in Survey No.913/2, the property concerned is having an extent of 20 acres, whereas reference to the A and B register discloses that as against Survey No.913/2, the extent was only 3.35 hectares. iii. In the statement given by Marimooppan before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottapallam on 16.11.2010, the survey number mentioned is 917/1; that too as against 10 acres of property. iv. The Taluk surveyor has reported that the applicants were claiming the properties falling under the Survey No.913/1 which is in possession of Sri.Shaji, S/o.Thomas and Paul George, S/o.George. v. The claim presented by the applicants does not mention about the properties held by K.Kunjumon. vi. Philip does not hold any property in the afore survey numbers. On account of the above reasons, Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent stood set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration at the hands of the 2nd respondent. 6. The 2nd respondent, thereafter, issued Ext.P9 order, essentially arriving at the same findings as in Ext.P6. The further appeal at Ext.P10 by the petitioner stood rejected at the hands of the 1st respondent by Ext.P11. It is in the above circumstances, W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 is filed. 7. Shaju, who is one of the signatories in Ext.P3 produced along with W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 referred to above, has been in possession of some properties obtained by him in the above manner and pursuant to the partition at Ext.P3. Therefore, Shaju filed W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017 when he was faced with the same proceedings mentioned in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017. Therefore, Shaju filed W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017 when he was faced with the same proceedings mentioned in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017. The prayer in W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017 is to quash Ext.P6 order issued by the 5th respondent (same as Ext.P9 in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017) and also Ext.P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent (same as Ext.P11 in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017). 8. W.P(C) No.3467 of 2017 is filed by an assignee who obtained the properties pursuant to Exts.P1 to P3 documents which were executed by the legal heirs of the assignees from P.C. brothers. The challenge in W.P(C) No.3467 of 2016 is against Ext.P9 issued by the 2nd respondent (same as Ext.P11 in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017). 9. W.P(C) No.19141 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.3467 of 2017 complaining about the refusal to accept basic tax on the land on account of the proceedings challenged in the former writ petitions. 10. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed in the respective writ petitions. In WP(C) No.1020 of 2017, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, contending that no documents were produced in support of various claims made as regards the possession of the property at the hands of P.C. brothers and therefore, P.C. brothers can only be considered as encroachers, having no actual right over the property. 11. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017, relying on Ext.P11 report of the Special Survey Team, Mannarkkad, wherein, the properties in Survey No.913/1 and the properties claimed by the applicants have been separately marked. 12. I have heard Sri. P. Ravindran, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1949 of 2017, Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2017 and Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) Nos.3467 of 2017 and 19141 of 2018 as also the learned Government Pleader. 13. Sri.P. Ravindran, the learned senior counsel would contend as under: i. The provisions of Act 31 of 1975 define the term “transfer” under Section 2(g) and it is only in a situation where “transfer” is proved by the applicants, the provisions under Section 4 of the Act, would get attracted. 13. Sri.P. Ravindran, the learned senior counsel would contend as under: i. The provisions of Act 31 of 1975 define the term “transfer” under Section 2(g) and it is only in a situation where “transfer” is proved by the applicants, the provisions under Section 4 of the Act, would get attracted. He points out that if Section 4 of the Act is not getting attracted, there is no question of applying the provisions under Section 6 of the Act. ii. Sri.Ravindran relied on Exts.P4 and P5 applications filed by the applicants and would submit that in column 5 of the applications as against the extent, only 5 Ares and 15 Ares (total 20 Ares) are mentioned. He also points out that as against the survey number to be mentioned in column 5(b), in both applications the mention is only about SM 840/76. iii. He points out to Ext.P1 survey and settlement register of Sholayur Village wherein the properties under Survey No.913/1 is shown to be under the occupation of ‘P.C. brothers’, whereas, in the very same register as against Survey No.917/1 alone the applicants’ name figure. 14. Sri.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1020 of 2017 points out as under: i. In Ext.P6 order, the Sub Collector has only proceeded on the basis of the “assumptions”. ii. Relying on Ext.P5(a) - A and B register produced along with the writ petition, he points out that the properties under Survey No.913/1 were in the possession of ‘P.C. brothers’. iii. He relies on Ext.P11 report of the Special Survey Team to contend that the properties in Survey No.913/1 are different from the properties mentioned in the applications filed by the applicants. 15. Sri.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.3467 of 2017: i. Relies on Ext.P11 Survey War Register to point out that SM 840/76 referred to in the applications filed by the applicants, pertain to Survey No.917/1. ii. He also relies on Ext.P10 report submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, wherein there is a positive finding that the properties under Survey No.913/1 were obtained against the purchase certificate by ‘P.C. brothers’ and there is no evidence adduced by the applicants in support of their contentions. 16. The learned Government Pleader would rely on the findings contained in the order issued by the Sub Collector to contend that the proceedings initiated were perfectly justified. 17. 16. The learned Government Pleader would rely on the findings contained in the order issued by the Sub Collector to contend that the proceedings initiated were perfectly justified. 17. I have considered the rival submissions and the connected records. 18. The first issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is regarding the applicability of the provisions under the Act 31 of 1975 and Act 12 of 1999. The above enactments have been introduced for restricting the “transfer” of lands by members of the Scheduled Tribes in the State and for restoration of possession of lands “alienated by such members of Scheduled Tribes”. Sections 4 and 5 of Act 31 of 1975 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. 5. Certain transfers to be invalid:- 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 immovable property possessed, enjoyed or owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other, than a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe effected on or after the first day of January, 1960, and before the Commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be invalid.” (underlining supplied) Under Section 4, certain transfers are deemed to be invalid, when made without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority. Similarly, under Section 5, certain transfers made on or after 01.01.1960 upto the commencement of the Act are also made invalid. As regards the transfer of immovable property, which is invalid under Section 4 or 5, the statute provides for the following treatment under Section 6 of Act 31 of 1975: “6. Similarly, under Section 5, certain transfers made on or after 01.01.1960 upto the commencement of the Act are also made invalid. As regards the transfer of immovable property, which is invalid under Section 4 or 5, the statute provides for the following treatment under Section 6 of Act 31 of 1975: “6. Reconveyance of property.- (1) Where by reason of a transfer of immovable property which is invalid under S. 4 or S.5, a member of a Scheduled Tribe has ceased or ceases to be in possession or enjoyment thereof, he shall be entitled to restoration of possession or enjoyment, as the case may be, of such property. (2) Any person entitled to be restored to the possession or enjoyment of any immovable property under sub-section (1) or any other person on his behalf may make an application, either orally or in writing, to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act or such further period as may be specified by Government by notification in the Gazette. (a) for restoration of possession or enjoyment, as the case may be, of such property, if such transfer had been made before the date of commencement of this Act; or (b) for restoration of possession or enjoyment, as the case may be, of such property and for the prosecution of the person who has procured such transfer, if such transfer was made on or after the date of commencement of this Act. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the Revenue Divisional Officer shall make or cause to be made necessary inquiries in respect of such application and, if he is satisfied that the applicant or the person on whose behalf the application has been made is entitled to restoration of possession or enjoyment, as the case may be, of the immovable property mentioned in the application, he shall, by order, direct the person in possession or enjoyment of such property to deliver possession thereof to the applicant or to the person on whose behalf the application has been made or, as the case may be, to allow him to enjoy such property, within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the order and also specify the amount payable under section 11.” (underlining supplied) Thus Section 6 provides for the reconveyance of the property, the transfer of which is invalid under Section 4 or 5. 19. A reading of Sections 4, 5 and 6 make it clear that the above provisions are attracted only when there is a “transfer” of property; i. By a member of the Scheduled Tribe ii. Of immovable property possessed, enjoyed or owned by him iii. To a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, it is only in a situation where the “applicant” under Section 6(2) of Act 31 of 1975 proves that, there was a transfer of certain property from his side to a person other than the member of a Scheduled Tribe, the above provision gets attracted. 20. The term “transfer” has been defined under Section 2(g) of Act 31 of 1975 as under: "(g) “transfer" in relation to immovable property, means an act by which immovable property is conveyed by any documentary or oral transaction, whether by way of mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift or exchange, or in any other manner, not being a testamentary disposition; and includes a charge, 'vilapanayam', 'unduruthi', contract relating to immovable property, mortgage, pledge or hypothecation of crops or standing trees on payment of consideration or otherwise, voluntary surrender and abandonment. Explanation.-For the purposes of his clause,- (i) "vilapanayam" means hypothecation of crops on payment of consideration or otherwise; (ii) 'unduruthi", means an assignment of the right to collect the usufructs available or anticipated to be available on any land during a specified term for a specified price. A reading of the above definition makes it clear that a conveyance either by a document or by an oral transaction of immovable property by way of mortgage, lease, sale, gift/exchange or in any other manner of immovable property is attracted under the above definition. Therefore, the applicant has to first prove with reference to the immovable property that there was a transfer from his side to the member of the Non-Scheduled Tribe, without which the provisions of the statute are not attracted. 21. The provisions of Act 12 of 1999, which came into force with effect from 24.01.1986, repealed Act 31 of 1975. Here, the applications have been presented by the applicants before the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5 on 16.07.1987. However, the orders were issued on 31.05.2012 as evidenced by Ext.P6 with reference to the provisions of Act 12 of 1999. 22. The provisions of Act 12 of 1999 are also similar to the provisions under Act 31 of 1975. But as regards the term “transfer”, Act 12 of 1999 provides as under: “(g) transfer means the transfer made by any person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe of lands in his ownership and possession to a person other than a member of the Scheduled Tribe by way of sale, mortgage, lease, gift and includes vilapanayam and unduruthy. Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause: (i) vilapanayam means hypothecation of crops on pay- ment of consideration or otherwise; (ii) unduruthi means an assignment of the right to collect the usufructs available or anticipated to be available to any land during a specified term for a specified price.” (underlining supplied) Apart from the above difference, the provisions under Section 4 relating to restriction on transfer, Section 5 providing certain transfers to be invalid and Section 7 dealing with the reconveyance of land are all pari materia to the corresponding provisions under Act 31 of 1975. Therefore, the applicants in the case at hand ought to have proved the “transfer” by them to the petitioners herein so as to get the benefits under the provisions of Section 7 (reconveyance of land) from the petitioners. 23. The reference to the applications at Exts.P4 and P5 would show that the reconveyance is sought as against a property, extending to 5 Ares in Ext.P4 and 15 Ares in Ext.P5. Similarly, as regards the description of the property no survey number is noted. Instead, the applicants only make reference to the “SM 840/76”. The nature of the transfer is shown as “free lease”. 24. Thus, first of all, the area which is sought to be reconveyed is 20 Ares which has no connection with the property in the possession of the petitioners. Secondly, no survey number is provided. Thirdly, in the place of the survey number, reference is made to SM 840/76. The said SM 840/76 was in relation to the property in Survey No.917/1 as is clear from Ext.P11 produced along with W.P(C) No.3467 of 2017. Similarly, a reference to Ext.P1, produced along with W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 would show that Survey No.917/1 is with reference to the properties in the possession of the applicants. Therefore, Ext.P4 and P5 applications can only be considered to be filed with reference to the properties in Survey No.917/1. In Ext.P1 itself, produced along with W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017, the properties under Survey No.913/1 are shown as under the occupation of ‘P.C. brothers’. 25. Similarly, the report at Ext.P11 produced along with W.P(C) No.1020 of 2017 of the Special Survey Team clearly shows that the properties under Survey No.913/1 are different from the survey number of the properties claimed by the applicants. Ext.P5(a) also proves that the properties in Survey No.913/1 are held by ‘P.C. brothers’. From all the above, it is clear that the applicants were not in a position to prove any “transfer of properties from their side to the petitioners herein”. 26. The first order issued by the 2nd respondent - Ext.P6 in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017, also proceeds purely on the basis of assumptions. 27. From all the above, it is clear that the applicants were not in a position to prove any “transfer of properties from their side to the petitioners herein”. 26. The first order issued by the 2nd respondent - Ext.P6 in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017, also proceeds purely on the basis of assumptions. 27. Apart from all the above, it is noticed from Ext.P6 in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 (later substituted as Ext.P14 along with I.A.No.1 of 2019) dated 31.05.2012, the 2nd respondent found with reference to Ext.P5 (a) and on examination of the parties that the disputed property was in the name of P.C. brothers. Similarly, there is a finding that the properties in the name of the applicants are falling under Survey No.917/1. Even after finding so, the 2nd respondent found that since no records were produced by the petitioners apart from Ext.P3 partition deed, the stand of the petitioners cannot be accepted. I find no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent for arriving at such a finding. As already noticed, it was for the applicants to have proved the transfer, so as to invoke the provisions of the relevant statutes. When the 2nd respondent finds with reference to the documents including Ext.P5(a) of Sholayur Village that the disputed properties are in the name of P.C. brothers, the onus on the part of the applicants cannot be treated to have shifted to the petitioners herein. It is only when the applicants prove their case by adducing evidence, the petitioners can be called upon to produce subsequent documents in support of their ownership. The petitioners have produced Exts.P15 and P16 purchase certificates along with I.A.No.1 of 2021 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Pudur dated 28.06.1974 and 29.05.1975 in favour of P.C.Mathew and P.C.Thomas. The said purchase certificates have been issued pursuant to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. A reference to the schedule forming part of the said purchase certificates also shows P.C. brothers were having a valid right. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to sustain the impugned orders challenged in these writ petitions. 28. The said purchase certificates have been issued pursuant to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. A reference to the schedule forming part of the said purchase certificates also shows P.C. brothers were having a valid right. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to sustain the impugned orders challenged in these writ petitions. 28. I also notice the judgment of this Court in Kunjiraman Nambiar and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2018 (4) KHC 257 ] wherein this Court found that it is only when the factum of transfer is proved, the provisions of Act 12 of 1999 would get attracted. Resultantly, the writ petitions would stand allowed as under: i. Exts.P9 and P11 challenged in W.P(C) No.1949 of 2017 would stand quashed. ii. In view of the above, W.P(C) Nos.1020 and 3467 of 2017 are also allowed. iii. Ext.P11 in W.P(C) No.19141 of 2018 is quashed, directing the 4th respondent therein to accept basic tax for the year 2018-2019 onwards in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P3 from the petitioners therein.