Allowed

Mrs. Annamma v. the District Collector, Idukki

Kerala HC28 Oct 2011WP(C)/15022/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue officers' demand for a no objection certificate to register a sale deed. The court dismissed the demand, directing registration without such certificate based on prior precedent, provided the document is valid in other respects.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale document without insisting on a no objection certificate from revenue authorities.

Mrs. Annamma Vs the District Collector, Idukki — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 15022 of 2011(C)

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

------------------------

¶9

MRS.ANNAMMA,KAVUNKAL HOUSE,VELLOOR.P.O, PAMBADY VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 501,REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JACOB MATHEW.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI-PIN-685 001.

¶14

2. THE TAHSILDAR,PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-PIN-685 531.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VAGAMON VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531.

¶16

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER,PEERUMEDU SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE,PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C)NO.15022/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF JACOB MATHEW DATED 9/9/2010.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3423/2002 DATED 11/12/2002 OF PEERUMEDU SRO.

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THANDAPER REGISTER OF THANDAPER NO.5085 DATED 6/1/2003.

¶26

P4 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3482/2002 DATED 16/12/2002 OF PEERUMEDU SRO.

¶27

P5 COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER OF THANDAPER NO.5090 DATED 8/1/2003.

¶28

P6 COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED NO.1530/04 DATED 5/5/2004 OF THE SRO PEERUMEDU.

¶29

P7 COPY OF THE PATTAYAM DATED 31/05/1979.

¶30

P8 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 3/12/2002.

¶31

P8(A) COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 28/9/1998.

¶32

P8(B) COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 1/7/2002.

¶33

P9 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8/1/2003.

¶34

P10 COPY OF THE SKETCH AND LOCATION PLAN FOR AN EXTENT OF 10.12 ARES IN VAGAMON VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 6/1/2003.

¶35

P11 COPY OF THE PLOTTED SKETCH ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.

¶36

P12 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16/01/2004 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY UNDER EXT.P2.

¶37

P13 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16/01/2004 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY UNDER EXT.P4.

¶38

P14 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 6/1/2003 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY UNDER EXT.P2.

¶39

P15 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 8/1/2003 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY UNDER EXT.P4.

¶40

P16 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2003

¶41

P17 COPY OF THE WP(C)NO.25924/2003 DATED 12/8/2003.

¶42

2/-

¶43

-2-

¶44

WP(C)NO.15022/2011

¶45

P17(A) COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO.25924/2003 DATED 29/8/2003.

¶46

P18 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/12/2006 IN WPC NO.25924/2003.

¶47

P19 COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE BUILDING TAX REMITTED FOR THE BUILDING IV 158 DATED 26/2/2011.

¶48

P19(A) COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE BUILDING TAX REMITTED FOR THE BUILDING 158 A TO 1 DATED 26/2/2011.

¶49

P20 COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 11/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶50

P21 COPY OF THE D&O LICENSE FEE REMITTED FOR HOTEL RESTAURANT AND RESORT DATED 23/7/2010.

¶51

P22 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 19/5/2011.

¶52

P23 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/3/2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON.

¶53

P24 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/3/2009 ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, PEERUMEDU.

¶54

P25 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE SRO PEERUMEDU IN SURVEY NO.185 OF VAGAMON VILLAGE.

¶55

P26 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4257/2010.

¶56

P26(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.306/2011

¶57

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15022 OF 2011

¶62

=====================

¶63

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2011

¶64

J U D G M E N T

¶65

Petitioner submits that she is the owner of the properties covered by Exts.P2 and P4. According to the petitioner, she wants to sell the property and has entered into an agreement in that behalf. Her grievance is that by Ext.P24, the 4^th respondent has informed her that for registering the said document, she should produce a no objection certificate from the Tahsildar. It is aggrieved by this stand taken by the 4^th respondent, the writ petition is filed.

¶66

The issue raised by the petitioner has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Selvam v. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 508), which has been followed in several other cases, where it has been held that, for registration of a document as sought for by the petitioner, no objection certificate of the revenue authorities cannot be insisted.

¶67

Therefore, this writ petition is also disposed of directing that if the petitioner or her Power of Attorney Holder presents the document conveying her properties and if the said document is

¶68

WPC No. 15022/11

¶69

:2 :

¶70

valid in all other respects, the 4^th respondent shall accept and deal with the same in accordance with law for registration without insisting on the production of any no objection certificate as insisted in Ext.P24. However, it is made clear that, if the property is liable to be proceeded against for any other reason, registration of the document pursuant to this judgment will not be to the prejudice of the respondents.

¶71

Needless to say that if the document is registered as above and the property is mutated, it will be open to the purchaser to pay tax on that basis.

¶72

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶73

¶74

//True Copy//

¶75

PA to Judge

Mrs. Annamma v. the District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Annamma v. the District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanakizhakke Veettil Janaki Amma Vs Jayachandran P.C.

A.v.Devassia Vs Sri.Chacko Thomas

Thankamma Vs Amubjakshan

Basheer M Vs Padma Kumar

Krishnankutty Nair Vs Vijayalakshmi

N.K.Ramadasan Vs the State of Kerala and Others