IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21157 of 2011(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- GEORGE MANJOORAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIES MANJOORAN PULIKAN HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY.P.O., PIN-682 005, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOSSEY MANJOORAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE SHRI CHERIAN MANJOORAN, MANJOORAN'S HOUSE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ELLAMKULAM VILLAGE, KONTHURUTHY DESOM, THEVARA.P.O., COCHIN-682 013. BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.M.C.SANITHA SRI.K.S.SREELY KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 690 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU- 682 027. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THRIKKAKKARA-682 027. 5. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REP.BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA R5 BY ADV. POOVAPPALLY M. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 21157 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTARIZED POWER OF ATTORNEY DATD 19-3-2011 IN FAVOUR OF JOSSEY MANJOORAN. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19-5-2011 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF FLAT BEARING NOS. 108 A. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19-5-2011 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF FLAT BEARING NOS. 109 A. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 6-3-2010 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY. NO. 314/2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 21157 of 2011 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is a Non Resident Indian and is represented by his Power of Attorney holder. The fifth respondent framed a scheme by name “Thrikkakkara NRI Flats Housing Accommodation Scheme”. Under the same scheme, flats were constructed and two flats covered by Exts.P2 and P3 were allotted to the petitioner in an auction that was held. 2. On allotment of the flats and on payment of its value, Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds were executed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the fifth respondent and the petitioner says that the value indicated therein is more than the fair value fixed by the Government as per Ext.P4 notification. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner presented the said W.P.(C) No.21157/2011 : 2 : documents for registration before the fourth respondent. However, the fourth respondent refused to register the documents mainly stating that in Ext.P4 notification the property in question has been shown as government property. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed, seeking a direction for registration of the documents. 4. On behalf of the fourth respondent, a statement has been filed by the Standing Counsel, which confirms allotment of flat Nos.108A and 109A in the Thrikkakkara NRI Flats Housing Accommodation Scheme to the petitioner in an auction held by the Board. It is also stated that, the Board had acquired the property situated in R.S.No.314/2 part Block 8 of Vazhakkala village at Thrikkakkara and framed the aforesaid scheme. It is stated that the fourth respondent declined to register the sale deeds for the reason that the fair value in respect of the property has not been fixed. 5. Thus, obviously, the Board has acquired the property in question in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, framed the scheme, constructed the flats and W.P.(C) No.21157/2011 : 3 : in an auction held, allotted two such flats to the petitioner. It is accordingly that th sale deeds were executed by the Board and the petitioner presented Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds for registration. 6. Petitioner contends that the reason for refusal of registration is that in Ext.P4 fair value notification, though fair value in respect of the property has been fixed, the property has been shown as government property. This reason is confirmed by the learned Government Pleader also. Obviously, this discloses a patent mistake committed by the respondents in the classification of the property in question and in my view, such a patent mistake cannot operate to the prejudice of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, irrespective of the classification as shown in Ext.P4, the documents should be registered. Therefore, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent to accept Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds for registration and register the same provided, these documents are otherwise valid in all other respects. Simultaneously, the second respondent will W.P.(C) No.21157/2011 : 4 : also take steps for correction of the mistake in Ext.P4 notification. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/17/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge