IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10225 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.R.SUKUMARAN, METTUPARATHU HOUSE, KIZHUMURY, RAMAMANGALAM,MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, MR.AJEESH S.BRITE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERMNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, MEMMURY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10225/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE WILL EXECUTED BY PETITIONER'S FATHER DT. 02/04/1993. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 07/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).6421/05 DTD. 17/06/2005 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10225 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P3, an order passed by the first respondent, dealing with the petitioner's application for re-conveyance of a property. 2. Petitioner submits that an extent of 1.12 acres of land in Survey No.1024/3C and 1083/14 - 2 of Memury Village of Ernakulam District belonged to his father. According to the petitioner, his father was a defaulter to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. For realising the dues, recovery proceedings were initiated and finally, the property was brought for sale and was sold on 25/1/1988, when the Government purchased that land for a nominal value. 3. It would appear that on 2/04/1993, the petitioner's father executed a Will and the petitioner states that although the property in question was sold long prior to execution of the Will, in the Will , it was provided that it will be open to the the petitioner to discharge liability and inherit the property. On 7/5/2007, the petitioner's father expired and thereafter, the W.P.(C) No. 10225 / 2008 2 petitioner made an application requesting to re-convey the property to him and in the meanwhile he had discharged the liability also. However, by Exhibit P3, first respondent replied to the petitioner that since, the Will in question was not registered, he should produce a consent letter from the other 16 legal heirs of his deceased father. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the Will is not a compulsorily registrable document, the respondents ought not have declined to act upon the Will and should have allowed his request and re-conveyed the property to him. 4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand seeks to support Exhibit P3. He also submits that in any event, the petitioner has to pay the market value of the property in terms of G.O(MS) 196/96 dated 22/03/1996 and that only in such an event, can the petitioner claim re-conveyance of the property to him. 5. In this writ petition, this Court is only concerned with the validity of Exhibit P3. By this communication, the petitioner was informed that since the Will is not registered, he should produce consent letter from other legal heirs of the deceased. W.P.(C) No. 10225 / 2008 3 Will admittedly is not a compulsorily registrable document and therefore, cannot be declined to be acted upon for the reason that it is not a registered document. Therefore, if there is a valid Will and the property has also devolved on the petitioner, there is no reason to insist on the production of consent letter from other legal heirs as directed in Exhibit P3. If on the other hand legal heirs have any claim, it is for them to establish the same in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, Exhibit P3 will stand set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for re- conveyance of the property referred to above, and pass fresh orders. It is clarified that I have not examined the amount that is payable by the petitioner, in the event, his request for re- conveyance is allowed and it is entirely for the respondents to fix the amount payable by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm