IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4293 of 2011(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- P.C.KUTTAN, F4-15, SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, KAKKANAD WEST, KOCHI – 682 030. BY SRI. P.C. KUTTAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL ENGINEER, KSHB PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSHB PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI – 30. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A. JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4293 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition has been filed by the 'party in person' with the long pending grievance that, in spite of the purchase of the property from the Kerala State Housing Board paying the requisite sale consideration, the title deed has not been got registered in the name of the petitioner, because the delay and lapses attributable to the respondents. 2. As borne by the pleadings, there was a dispute with regard to the actual amount payable by the petitioner to the Housing Board, particularly in way of various litigations between the petitioner and the Housing Board. One of such disputes is still pending consideration before this Court as R.F.A No.15/2009. When the petitioner approached this Court with the grievance regarding the non registration of the document by filing W.P.(C) No.15099/2009, a direction was given to the respondents to execute and register the sale deed, making clear that the claim put forth from the part of the Housing Board to an extent of Rs.8,200/- shall be a 'charge' on the property. W.P.(C) No. 4293/2011 - 2 - 3. Aggrieved by the said stipulation, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.2608/2009, which was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment, whereby the 'rider' placed by the learned Single Judge was modified by the Division Bench ordering that on payment of the sum of Rs.8,200/- to the Housing Board, the document shall be executed and making it clear that such payment shall be subject to the final verdict to be passed by this Court in R.F.A No.15/2009 as aforesaid. 4. Quite a number of litigations by way of contempt of court cases also followed in the meanwhile alleging wilful disobedience of the direction given by this Court. The contempt matter filed against the third respondent herein (Contempt Case (Civil) No.1140/2010) was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, observing that the contemnor was not a party to the Writ Petition. 5. The party - in - person submits that the document was originally presented on 10/02/2009 and as such, the delay in the matter of execution and registration is only attributable to the respondents 1 and 2. Later, pursuant to Ext.P2, when the matter was presented for registration before the third respondent, Ext.P6 objection was raised by the third respondent, referring to the W.P.(C) No. 4293/2011 - 3 - 'fair value notification' with effect from 01/04/2010 as to the minimum value of the property, as per which, the petitioner was to remit a further sum of Rs.50,410/- after giving credit to the stamp value of Rs.21,300/- of the stamp papers on which the document was prepared and presented. It is also mentioned in the said objection that, if the document is to be presented after 25/10/2010, the balance payable may slightly vary. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no fault or lapse on the part of the third respondent in having raised the objection and that the document can be registered only on satisfaction of the requisite stamp value, more so in view of the decision rendered by this Court in “Pareekkutty v Sub Registrar” (2020(3) KLT 1005) and “Renga Swamy Chettiar v Mari Chettiyar” (2010(4) KLT 367. Whether there is any delay on the part of the first and second respondents as alleged by the petitioner in the matter of execution of the document and causing it to be registered can be decided only on the basis of specific pleadings and evidence to be let in before the competent Civil Court. 7. In the above circumstance, it is open for the petitioner to present the document after curing the defect as pointed out by W.P.(C) No. 4293/2011 - 4 - the third respondent vide Ext.P6 and satisfying the balance stamp duty; on which even, it shall be registered by the third respondent forthwith. It is also made clear that after registration of the document as above, the petitioner can proceed against the first and second respondents, if aggrieved, appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court in respect of the loss / damages, if the delay is attributable to the said respondents. It is made clear that the rival contentions of the parties in this regard are left open. Writ Petition is disposed as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vdv