IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37023 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PERIYATHAI, W/O. LATE KANCHI, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT 12 ROOM LINES, MOOLAKKAEDA, MUNNAR.P.O - 685 612. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 602. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECOTRATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 602. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVIKULAM, DEVIKULAM.P.O PIN - 685 613. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37023 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that she wants to alienate the property covered by Ext.P3 sale deed for which she has entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the intenting purchaser. According to the petitioner, she apprehends that if the sale deed is drawn up and presented for registration, the 5th respondent will refuse to register the document insisting that the petitioner should produce no objection certificate from the revenue authorities. Petitioner's contention is that in several cases including in WA No.2080/09 and in Ext.P10 judgment, this Court has already held that in the absence of any such statutory provision, the respondents cannot demand production of no objection certificate from the revenue authorities for registering any sale deed. On this basis, petitioner seeks appropriate direction for registration of the document, which she intents to execute in pursuance to Ext.P1. 2. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, as at present, since the petitioner has not presented any document for registration and since the 5th respondent has not WPC No. 37023/10 :2 : refused to register the same, the prayer sought in the writ petition is merely speculative and anticipatory. 3. However, fact remains that in the judgments noticed above, this Court has already held that in the absence of any statutory requirement, 5th respondent cannot demand production of any no objection certificate. 4. Therefore, clarifying the position as above and directing that in the event petitioner produces any document, which is valid in all other respects, the same will be dealt with in accordance with the Stamp Act and the Registration Act, but however without insisting on any no objection certificate, the writ petition is disposed of. It is also clarified that ultimately if the basic document relied on is found to be defective for any reason, it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the property also. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp