IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35094 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.SHAMEER AHAMED, J.J.TEX BUILDING, NEW COLONY, MUNNAR ,IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN CODE- 685 612. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI – 686 501. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM, PIN – 686 502. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, K.D.H VILLAGE- 686 502. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVIKULAM – 686 502. R1 TO R4 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35094 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is an anticipatory one. According to the petitioner, he owns properties covered by Exts.P1 to P3 and he intents to alienate the same. It is apprehending that on production of such a deed, the 4th respondent will insist on a no objection certificate from the revenue authorities. Petitioner relies on Exts.P7 to P9 judgments of this Court to contend that if such a demand is raised, the same will be against the principles laid down in the judgments. True, in the said judgments, it was laid down that in the absence of any provision in the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar cannot insist on the production of no objection certificate. Therefore, if the petitioner produces documents alienating the property covered by Ext.P1, which is valid in all respects, I am sure that the authority will take action based on the principles laid down by this Court in Exts.P7 to P9 and I have no reason to think otherwise. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp