IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23239 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRATHEESHKUMAR,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KOYILPURATH HOUSE,PULLIPARAMBU P.O, THIROORANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673634 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- THE SUB REGISTRAR,OFFICE OF THE AGALI SUB REGISTRAR,MANNARKKADU,PALAKKADU DISTRICT, KERALA PIN 678 581. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23239/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 10.3.1973 ISSUED BY THE AGALI LAND TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF P.A.CHENNIMALA CHETTIYAR. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1012/06 DATED 26.7.2006 OF AGALI SUB REGISTRY EXECUTED BY P.A.CHENNIMALA CHETTYAR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.4.2011 IN RESPECT OF EXT.P2 PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 3.11.2010 IN RESPECT OF EXT.P2 PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23239 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he has purchased 3 acres and ¼ cents of property situated in Sy.No.679/2 of Agali Village. Exts.P1 and P2 are his documents of title. Ext.P3 is the tax receipt and Ext.P4 is the possession certificate. It is stated that he wants to alienate the property, but the respondent is refusing to register the same for the reason that the petitioner has not produced an NOC issued from the Revenue Department. 2. Learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that the survey department had provided two registers namely A and B to the respondent, which indicate that the property in the survey number in which the petitioner's property belong was once assigned to Adivasis and is not an assignable property. In the light of Exts.P1 to P4 documents referred to above, prima facie, the correctness of the submission is open to doubt. 3. Be that as it may, this Court is not called upon to examine the correctness of this contention atleast in this WPC No. 23239/11 :2 : proceedings where the claim raised by the petitioner is for registration of document pertaining to the property covered by the aforesaid title deeds. 4. As already seen, the objection raised by respondent is that the petitioner has not produced NOC from the Revenue Department. The requirement of such NOCs as a condition precedent for registration of document has already been considered by this Court in the judgment in Selvam v. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 508), where it has been held that the insistence is illegal. Since the facts are identical, the principle laid down in that judgment should be applicable to the facts of this case also. Therefore, following the said judgment, I dispose of this writ petition directing that, if the document of title to be submitted by the petitioner is otherwise valid in all respects, that will be accepted and registered. However, I clarify that such registration of the document will not stand in the way of the revenue authorities or the respondent himself in proceeding against the property for which it is liable to be proceeded against, for any other reason. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp