IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2943 of 2005(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.AMINA, W/O. USMAN, ARANGATHU HOUSE, VELIMUKKU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY, THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHADEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2943/2005-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 778/94 DTD. 01/03/1994 S.R.O KONDOTTY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO. 135/1996 DTD. 30/01/1996 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT O. 74 DTD. 14/02/1990. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE -DO- NO. 1 DTD. 05/05/1995. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE -DO- NO. 32 DTD. 28/01/2002. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE -DO- NO. 606899 DTD. 12/10/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 01/12/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 04/12/2004 FROM SRO KONDOTTY. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 04/12/2004 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3 1/12/2004 BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 2943 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P8 and P10, seeks a direction to register Ext.P7 sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration as expeditiously as possible and to declare that the proceedings initiated under the Enemy Property Act is illegal, highly arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the absolute owner of 28.15 cents of land in Cherukavu Village on the strength of Exts. P1 and P2 documents. She has been remitting land tax since she purchased the property vide Ext.P1 sale deed. Petitioner has sold the property to one Alavi Haji for valid consideration. Sale deed was written in stamp papers and presented for registration. The third respondent refused to register the same and issued Ext.P8 memo stating that the document cannot be registered since the property has been prohibited from alienating under the Enemy Property Act. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation before the District Collector. The District Collector issued Ext.P10 reply giving very same WPC. 2943/2005. 2 reason. According to the petitioner, there is violation of the provisions of natural justice. It is stated that the petitioner is in absolute possession since the execution of Ext.P1 sale deed and she has been remitting tax eversince Ext.P1 sale deed. There was a complaint that before issuing Exts.P8 and P10 natural justice was violated. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. It appears that there is a notification issued by which the property in question has been notified under the Enemy Property Act. Exts.P8 and P10 are issued by the Sub Registrar and District Collector respectively only acting on the basis of the said document and it may not be open to the petitioner to challenge the said decisions, which can only be termed as consequential to the notification of the property under the Enemy Property Act and it is for the petitioner to work out her remedy against the notification. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the notifying of the property in question under the Enemy Property Act. In order to facilitate the petitioner to work out her remedies against the proceedings under the Act in respect of the property, the first respondent is directed to issue a copy of the proceedings, which the learned Government Pleader submits dated WPC. 2943/2005. 3 21.11.2002, to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb