IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17071 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LISSY KURUVILA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.KURUVILA, MANJAYIL HOUSE, VIRIPARA KARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BENNET SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, C3 AIR QUARTERS, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. BIJU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, THONAKARA HOUSE, AMBAZHACHAL KARA, THOKKUPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.K.A.JOSEPH RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATIONS, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIST.COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, IDUKKI. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVIKULAM. GOVT. PLEDER SHRI.M.P.SRIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 17071 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of certain land in Idukki district. Petitioners 2 an 3 are prospective buyers. According to the petitioners, they have entered into an agreement for sale of the property, pursuant to which, a sale deed has been executed, but, when the same was presented for registration before the 5th respondent, he insisted on an NOC from the District Collector in respect thereof. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 5th respondent to register Ext.P1 sale deed in terms of Registration Act, with out insisting for NOC from the Dist Collector.” 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government has insisted on an NOC from the District Collector for registration of the documents in Idukki district because of existence of large number of bogus pattas in that area. He also points that in respect of the 1st petitioner's property, proceedings for cancellation of patta are pending as evidenced by Ext.P6 order of the District Collector. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, documents in respect of the property cannot be registered now. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. w.p.c.17071/10 2 4. Even if the contention of the learned Government Pleader is true, they have to content with Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, in which, a Division Bench has held that for registration of documents by the Sub Registrars, no NOC can be insisted upon from the District Collector, insofar as there is no provision for the same in the relevant statutes. Of course, in that judgment, liberty has been given to the Revenue authorities to continue proceedings for cancellation of patta in accordance with the law applicable. In the above circumstances, the 5th respondent is directed to consider the question of registration of the documents presented by the petitioners for registration without insisting on NOC from the District Collector. However, this will not stand in the way of the respondents pursuing Ext.P6 and taking the proceedings for cancellation of patta to its logical conclusion after complying with the procedural formalities for the same. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.17071/10 3