IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15617 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- REENA BIJU, W/O.BIJU P.JACOB, AGED 42 YEARS, PADATHIL, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PEERMEDE, IDUKKI - 685 531. 2. SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKOLAM - 685 413. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMEDE, IDUKKI - 685 531. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 15617/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2/6136/06 DATED 18/04/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/01/2010 IN W.A. NO.2080/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15617 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he has entered into an agreement for sale with the owner of 26.4 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.1155 of Vagamon Village. According to the petitioner, in view of Ext.P1 issued by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent is called upon to insist on the production of No Objection Certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities for registration. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following main prayer: “to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 1st respondent to admit the sale deed evidencing the sale of 66 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.1155 of Vagamon Village, in favour of the petitioner, to registration, without insisting on any No Objection Certificate by the 3rd respondent as directed in Lr. No.A2/6136/06 dated 16.8.07 of the 2nd respondent.” 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. W.P(C) No.15617 of 2011 2 3. In my view the issue raised by the petitioner is fully answered in his favour by virtue of Ext.P2 judgment, where a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the 1st respondent cannot insist on production of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities for registration of documents. In that view the aforesaid relief sought by the petitioner has to be allowed. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to register the documents presented by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order. However, it is made clear that such registration will not stand in the way of respondents to proceed against the property, in case the patta is defective or for any reason warranting any such proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE