IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 424 of 2011(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MOHAN, SON OF K.J.MATHEW, AGED 60 YEARS, NEELETTU HOUSE, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. ABHILASH MOHAN, SON OF MOHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, NEELETTU HOUSE, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. SHIBU.C.S., SON OF SREEDHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, CHITTILAKKATTU HOUSE, KODAMTHURUTH MURI, KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 4. SIYAD, SON OF YOUSUF, AGED 42 YEARS, KARIYIL HOUSE, KODAMTHURUTH MURI, KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ALIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 688 001. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KUTHIATHODU, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 688 533. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.424 OF 2011(c) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are owners of property, who have decided to sell the same to one Sri. E.K. Premachandran. They were aggrieved by the fair value fixed for the land and carried the matter in appeal before the 2nd respondent. Second respondent issued Exts.P4 to P6 orders disposing of the appeals modifying the fair value. However, the order has not been notified so far and in the meanwhile the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction from this court to at least provisionally register the documents without awaiting for a notification. In support of this plea they also rely on Ext.P7 judgment. 2. Admittedly the Rule requires that once an appeal is disposed in the manner as is done in Exts.P4 to P6 order, it should be notified to make it effective. That requirement has not been complied with so far. Therefore, at this stage court cannot direct that the document of the petitioner should be registered accepting the fair value as per Exts.P4 to P6 order and any order will be premature one. In so far as Ext.P7 judgment is concerned, WPC.No.424 /2011 :2 : a reading of the judgment itself shows that it was on account of the peculiar facts of that case that this court exercised the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issued such an order and such an order cannot have universal application. On facts, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out such an imminent necessity for registration of their document, without awaiting for the notification to be published. In such circumstances, the only appropriate order to be passed is to require the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority to ensure that the notification as contemplated in the Rule is issued as expeditiously a possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and once it is notified the respondents shall register the documents in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.424 /2011 :3 :