IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6893 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALASUBRAMANIA KURUP, S/. A.V. NARAYAAN NAIR, PUKALAKATTU ETTUKETTIL, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.M.MUKESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, RAJAKUMARI DIST. IDUKKI. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, UDUMBALNCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDOM, DIST. IDUKKI 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. P.N. UTHAMAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHUKUDYPARAMBU, VATTAYAR P.O., KALLAR KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.6893 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P5 Patta, on the strength of Ext.P6 NOC, the 4th respondent acquired joint ownership as per Ext.P1 title deed. It is stated that the 4th respondent now wants to transfer his rights over the property, to the petitioner. However, despite the authorities having issued Ext.P6 NOC permitting transfer of the property, the authorities are refusing to act upon Ext.P6. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the first respondent to allow transfer the 1/3rd ownership of the 4th respondent in the landed property to the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that several cases have come to their notice where without proper verification NOCs were issued. It is stated that in view of this, the sub Collector, Devikulam, has issued a order dated 16.2.2008 prohibiting issue of WP(c).No.6893/09 2 NOC. It is stated that if the vendor of the petitioner is interested in transferring properties it is open to him to submit the title deeds and other documents, in which case, those documents will be considered and orders will be passed on their request for NOC. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Petitioner does not dispute the requirement of a NOC. In view of the case of the respondent that several cases have come to their notice where NOCS have been issued without proper verification of the document, the respondents cannot be faulted if they want to scrutinize the title and other documents before NOC is issued. It is therefore only appropriate for the vendor of the petitioner to produce the necessary documents before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the vendor of the petitioner to produce his titled deeds and other documents, in which case, the 2nd respondent shall verify the documents including Ext.P6 and pass orders within 4 weeks of its receipt. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.6893/09 3 WP(c).No.6893/09 4