IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29548 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.S.KANAKARAJ,A GED 59 YEARS, S/O SUBBAYYAN CHETTIYAR, 3/77, PERIYAVADHAMBACHERI, PERIYAVADHAMCHERI PO, SULTANPETTA, SOOLOOR, COIMBATHUR DISTRICT PIN 641658. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE AGALI SUB-REGISTRAR, MANNARKKADU, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, KERALA 678581. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29548/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE NO.658 DATED 2.8.1976 ISSUED BY THE AGALI LAND TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1790/2005 DATED 14.12.2005 REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS SITER IN LAWS. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.7.11 INR SPECT OF 3.85 ACRESOF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P2. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.7.11 IN RESPECT OF 3.50 ACRES OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P2. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.7.11 IN RESPECT OF 3.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P2. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.7.11 IN RESPECT OF 3.50 ACRS OF PROEPRTY COVERED BY EXT.P2. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.9.11 IN RESPECT OF EXTS.P2 PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.11 IN WPC NO.27410/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29548 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. According to him, he wants to sell the property and the grievance is that the respondent is insisting on the production of NOC from the revenue authorities for registration of the document. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. This issue was considered by this Court in Selvam v. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 508) and it has been held that registering authority cannot insist on the production of NOC from the revenue authorities for registering a document. In that view of the matter, petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to present his document for registration before the respondent. On such presentation, if the document is otherwise valid in law, the same will be accepted and dealt with for registration in accordance with law. It is clarified that, even if the document is registered as above, such registration shall not be to the prejudice of the State or its WPC No. 29548/11 :2 : authorities from proceeding against the property in question, if it is otherwise liable to be proceeded against. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp