IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5855 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BHARATIYAMMA, W/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, ELLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VIRIPPARA KARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATIONS, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, IDUKKI. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVIKULAM. SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5855 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the vendor of 2 cents of patta land comprised in Re survey No.77/1 (plot No.992) of Mankulam Village, Devikulam Taluk. The total sale consideration was for an amount of Rs.2,24,400/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sale deed. 2. When the document was presented for registration it was returned as Ext.P2 memo stating No Objection Certificate from the District Collector is required for registration. Circular dated 19/3/2007 issued by the second respondent, Inspector General of Registration in the matter. The petitioner is relying upon judgment in W.A.No.2080/09 produced as Ext.P3. 3. The question whether there is any objection for effecting registration, NOC from the Department of Revenue is required or not was considered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2080/2009 which is reported in 2010(1)KLT 508, the Division Bench held as follows:- “But so far as the larger question involved in this appeal pertaining to the competence of the revenue authorities to issue a direction to the registering officers not to register a document in the absence of No Objection W.P.(C)No.5855 of 2010 2 Certificate is concerned, it has to be held that the powers sought to be exercised by the revenue officials is prima facie arbitrary, illegal and without any sanction of law. Learned Addl. Advocate General fairly conceded before us that going by the provisions contained in the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder, such an embargo or interdiction cannot be placed by the revenue officials on the registering officers. But according to the learned Addl. Advocate General, such an unusual step was necessitated in view of the prevailing circumstances in Udumbanchola and Devikulam Taluks and particularly in Chinnakkanal Village and Munnar area. 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 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." 4. Finally the Division Bench directed registration to be conducted. But it was made clear the revenue officials are at liberty to proceed against the property which is sought to be transferred by the appellant No.1 in favour of appellants 2 and 3, if it is found that the said land belongs to the Government or that the patta allegedly obtained by appellant No.1 in respect of the W.P.(C)No.5855 of 2010 3 said property is bogus. With that liberty was reserved in favour of the revenue officials to proceed in accordance with law. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is pointed out that there are allegations regarding issuance of patta and therefore only to safe guard public interest the circular was issued. Since very same issue has been considered by the Division Bench above judgment is binding on the respondents. 6. Therefore there will be a direction to the Sub Registrar Office, Devikulam, the 5th respondent to register the original of the Ext.P2 if it is otherwise in order without insisting for production of NOC from the District Collector. But it is made clear that the revenue officials are at liberty to proceed against the property and take appropriate action in the matter. The same will be binding on the petitioner as well as the purchaser. The petitioner will give a due intimation to the purchaser in writing in the above conditions which have been prescribed by the Division Bench in Ext.P3 and this Court in this judgment. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj W.P.(C)No.5855 of 2010 4 The figure and word “2 cents” occurring in the first line of the judgment dated 11/03/2010 in WP(C)5855/2010 are corrected and substituted as “1 acre 2 cents” and the words “Ext.P2” occurring in line 3 of the sixth paragraph are corrected as “Ext.P1” as per order dated 30/03/2010 in I.A.4202/2010 in WP(C)5855/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)