IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20524 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN.K.K,S/O.KARAPPAN,AGED 49 KAVUNGAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD 682 502, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PRABHA,W/O. SASI,AGED 40, KAVUNGAL HOUSE EDAVANAKAD 682 502,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.SEEMA.E.GEORGE SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 030. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 502. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR,KUZHUPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 501. 5. THE GOSHREE ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL FOR R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the Document No.1140/1/1996. Ext.P2. True copy of the Agreement dated11.5.2007. Ext.P3. True copy of the Letter No.C4/55417/2007 dated 8.10.2007. Ext.P4. True copy of the letter dated 26.6.2009 issued by the 5th respondent. Ext.P5 True copy of the judgment dated 31.5.2010 in WP(c).No.15736/2010. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20524 OF 2010(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is the purchaser and the second petitioner is the seller of the property covered by Ext.P1. It is their case that pursuant to Ext.P2 sale agreement when the document of sale sought to be registered, that was declined by the 4th respondent on the ground that by Ext.P3 letter the District Registrar ha been asked to freeze transactions in respect of the properties mentioned therein, which includes the property covered by Ext.P1. It is in these background that this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P5 judgment and also the judgment in WP(c).No.21299/2010, where in similar contentions, this court has directed registration of documents. Sanding counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also confirms that as on date not even a Section 4(1) notification has been issued concerning the property in question. In that view of the matter the title holder of the property cannot be prevented from conveying his properties. WPC.No.20524 /2010 :2 : Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the production of a sale deed covering the property mentioned in Ext.P1, the 4th respondent shall register the document, provided the document is otherwise valid in all respects. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/