IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2131 of 2009(D) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RAJAN.P.ARAKKAL, S/O.ARAKKAL SIMON PETER, ARAKKAL HOUSE, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DIST. IDUKKI. BY MR.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DIST. IDUKKI. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DIST. IDUKKI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. IDUKKI. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVIKULAM, DIST. IDUKKI. BY MR. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2131 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issue relates to the claim of the petitioner for NOC for transferring the land, which is subject matter of Ext.P1 patta. He made Ext.P6 application to the 2nd respondent that resulted in Ext.P11 rejecting the same. The reason stated in Ext.P11 is that the patta is an invalid one, in as much as the same was issued by an Officer, who was incompetent for the same, and on that basis request for NOC has been declined. It is challenging Ext.P11, the writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader reiterating the contents of Ext.P11submits that this is a general issue prevailing that area, and therefore, respondents 2 & 3 have taken up the matter before the Government and decisions are awaited. 3. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that NOC has been declined on the basis that the patta issued is an invalid one, for the reason that the same was issued by an Officer, who was incompetent for the same. WP(C) No.2131/2009 -2- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the patta is a valid one and at any rate, third parties cannot be prejudiced by the alleged incompetency of the person, who has issued the same. As already noticed, the reason for rejection of the patta is incompetency of the Officer, who has issued the same. In the light of such findings in Ext.P11, this Court will not be justified in directing issuance of NOC ignouring the contents in Ext.P11. 5. If the petitioner has a case that the person, who issued the patta, is a competent person, and that the patta is valid, it is for the petitioner to establish the same in an appropriate proceedings in a Civil Court. In any case, I am not satisfied that any relief as sought for in the writ petition can be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg