IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12664 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW JOSEPH, S/O. MANI JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOVATHODE.P.O, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PEERMADE, IDUKKI - 685 602. 2. SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM - 685 613. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE, IDUKKI - 685 603. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.12664/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P-1 : LETTER NO.A2/6136/06 DATED 18/04/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P-2 : JUDGMENT DATED 21/1/2010 IN W.A.NO.2080/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. True copy P.A. to Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12664 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the owner of the property comprised in survey No.724 of Vagamon Village, as covered by sale deed No.1871/1996 of Peermede SRO, was enjoying his property, on the strength of the title derived, with absolute ownership and exclusive possession and was running a 'Tea Factory' therein. By virtue of the changed scenario with regard to the market conditions, the petitioner wound up the business and sought to sell the property; for which an agreement for sale is stated as executed. 2. However, when further steps were taken in this regard, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent has issued a direction to the 1st respondent not to register any conveyance, unless an 'NOC' was obtained from the concerned Tahsildar. The averments raised in this regard appear to be correct from the contents of Ext.P1 letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, seeking for the particulars of registration effected on the strength of NOC and those without obtaining such NOC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities of Revenue do not have any power to issue such prohibitory orders to the Registering authority and the registration has to be effected by the concerned authority in accordance with the W.P.(C) No.12664/2011 2 relevant provisions of the Registration Act, read with Rule 67 of the Kerala Registration Rules. 4. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. 5. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, similar issue had come up for consideration of this Court earlier. Since the concerned petitioner could not get any positive relief, the matter was took up in Appeal by filing W.A No.2080/2009 before the Division Bench, which was heard and disposed of on 21-01-2010, whereby the Appeal was allowed holding the position in favour of the petitioner/appellant. 6. It is relevant to note that two questions were considered by the Division Bench in the said case as stated in para 1 and 2; which are extracted below: 1. “Are the Revenue Officials legally competent or entitled to interdict a registering authority under the Registration Act 1908 from registering a sale deed on the ground that the subject matter of the document is suspected to be a revenue puramboke land? 2. Can the Revenue officials direct the registering authority to register the document only on production of a No Objection Certificate from the revenue officials?” 7. After an elaborate discussion of the facts and figures, the Division Bench observed in para 14 and 15 as given below: 14. “It may be true that large number of bogus pattas are in circulation in that area. Complicity of some of the officials in the Department is also not ruled out by the W.P.(C) No.12664/2011 3 Government. But so long as the provisions contained in the Registration Act do not give any power or authority to the revenue officials to meddle with the power vested with the registering authority under the Act, the action of the respondents – revenue officials cannot be countenanced or justified. 15. In this context it may be noticed that appellants Nos. 2 and 3 have shown their preparedness to purchase the property in question at their own risk. They seem to be confident enough about the title of appellant No.1 over the property in question. They are prepared to spend money on the stamp paper and get the document registered in their name. If appellant No.1 does not have any valid title over the property in question, he cannot obviously pass on any title to appellants 2 and 3. In other words, if appellant No.1 has a defective title over the property he can only pass such a defective title to his assignees. They cannot get a better right or title over the property just because a document has been registered under the Act. In the absence of any provision which allows the revenue officials to interdict the registering officer from admitting a document for registration, and to insist that registration can be effected only on production of No Objection Certificate, we have no hesitation to hold that the questions posed above have to be answered in the negative. We do so.” 8. In the light of the law made clear by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to register the sale deed as and when presented by the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in survey No.724 of Vagamon Village, subject to satisfaction of other W.P.(C) No.12664/2011 4 requirements under law, without any regard to production of NOC from the revenue authorities. 9. It is however made clear that the revenue authorities will be at liberty to proceed against the property, which is now sought to be transferred by the petitioner, if it is found that the said property belongs to the Government or that the title was obtained by the parties concerned by playing any fraud or on the basis of sham records. Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE