IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17404 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- NADI,S/O.NEELAKANDAN,CHIRAYIL.P.O, NEDIYIRIPPU DESOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SMT.M.M.DEEPA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR,KONDOTTY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17404 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 patta was issued to the mother of the petitioner under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. After death of the parents of the petitioner, who were in possession of the land, the same devolved by succession on the petitioner and other legal heirs. They wanted to sell the property. According to the petitioner, they have entered into Ext.P2 sale agreement and when sale deed was presented for registration before the 2nd respondent he refused to register the same on the basis of Ext.P3 amendment to the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, as per which there is a bar on alienation for a period of 25 years in respect of land assigned under the Rules. According to the petitioner, that amendment would not apply to the land in question since W.P.(C)No. 17404 of 2010 -2- the same was assigned long before the amendment of the Rules, which has no retrospective operation. Learned Government Pleader submits that, the petitioner's contention that the 2nd respondent has refused to register the document on presentation he cannot correct, because the Government themselves have issued an order clarifying that the amendment is not retrospective and it would be applicable only to land assigned subsequent to the amendment. He would further submit that if the petitioner actually presents the documents for registration, there cannot be any delay in getting the same registered if it is otherwise in order. Having heard both sides, I find that there is some merit in the Government pleader's submission. The petitioner claims to have executed the sale deed but he has not produced a copy of the same along with the Writ petition. In view of the above, it is open to the petitioner to present the sale deed for registration before the 2nd respondent. It would be open to the petitioner to point out that in view of the subsequent government orders W.P.(C)No. 17404 of 2010 -3- issued, clarifying that the amendment is not retrospective, the documents are liable to be registered notwithstanding the amendment. Without prejudice to that right this writ petition is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/