Disposed

Veerabhadra Gounder.R. v. Sub Registrar

Kerala HC30 May 2012WP(C)/2112/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged refusal to register a sale deed due to lack of No-objection Certificate because the land was formerly held by Adivasis. Court cited Selvan v. State of Kerala to hold that No-objection Certificate is not required and disposed of the petition directing registration subject to verifying title deeds under the 1999 Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to present the document for registration within two weeks along with a certified copy of this judgment; writ petition disposed; no costs.

Veerabhadra Gounder.R. Vs Sub Registrar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2112 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VEERABHADRA GOUDER.R., AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.RANKAYYAKAVUNDER, VADA KOTTATHARA, KOTTATHARA P.O, AGALI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD TALUK. 678 582.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINCENT.K.C.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

sts

¶14

WP(C)NO.2112/2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.129/87 DATED 2/3/1987 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE AGALI.

¶18

P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.745.8190 DATED 21/11/1990 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE AGALI.

¶19

P3 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.307/88 DATED 23/6/1988 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE AGALI.

¶20

P4 COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.1103/76 DATED 8/7/1976

¶21

P5 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5686712 DATED 19/4/11 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AGALI.

¶22

P6 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 14/9/2010 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,AGALI.

¶23

P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 709/12 DATED 10/1/2012.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶25

ANNEX R1 COPY OF THE BTR SHOWING THE ENTRY AS ADIVASI

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶30

W.P.(C). No.2112/2012-L
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Dated this the 30th day of May, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is the owner and in possession of 1Acre and 49 Cents of land in Agali Village, Mannarghat Taluk. The grievance raised is regarding the refusal of the respondent in registering the document for want of a No-objection Certificate from the Revenue Department. The objection is on the ground that the property was once assigned to Adivasis and is not an assignable property. The question whether a No-objection Certificate from the Revenue authorities is required, has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Selvan v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KLT 508] and therein, it was held that the No-objection Certificate is not required and insisted before registration of a document. Therefore, the Sub Registrar cannot insist for a No-objection Certificate.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the

¶34

light of the provisions of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 [in short Act 12 of 1999] as the land was held originally by Adivasis belonging to Scheduled Tribe, there can be an objection in the matter.

¶35

W.P.(C). No.2112/2012

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Sections 4 and 5 of Act 12 of 1999. Those Sections reads as follows:

¶38

“ Restriction on transfer .-- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, any transfer effected by a member of the Scheduled Tribe, of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by him on or after the commencement of this Act, to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe, without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority, shall be invalid.

¶39

Certain transfers to be invalid .-- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, any transfer of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe, effected on or after the 1^st day of January, 1960, and before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be invalid:

¶40

W.P.(C). No.2112/2012

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

Provided that nothing in this section shall render invalid any transfer of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe effected during the aforesaid period and the extent of which does not exceed two hectares.

¶43

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or other authority, in cases where the land involved in such transfer is used for agricultural purposes, the transferee thereof shall be entitled to retain in his possession the said land upto an extend of two hectares which shall be demarcated by the Revenue Divisional Officer by order and in the manner as may be prescribed.”

¶44

As far as vendor of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the person is not a Scheduled Tribe. The transaction made by the Scheduled Tribe herein is in the year 1975 which is clear from Exts.P1 to P3. Therefore, the only question is whether the restriction under Section 4 will apply. The date of commencement of the Act is 24/01/1986, and the transaction that was entered into

¶45

W.P.(C). No.2112/2012

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

between the scheduled tribe and the vendor of the petitioner is prior to the said period. Therefore, Section 4 may not apply.

¶48

As far as the invalidity of transfers under Section 5 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by proviso to Section 5, invalidity will not be attracted if the extent of the land does not exceed 2 hectares and, herein the extent of the property is only 1.49 Acres. Therefore, it is upto the Registrar to verify the prior title deeds of the petitioner, namely, the documents executed by the Scheduled Tribe to the Vendor of the petitioner and find out whether the transaction is saved by the proviso to Section 5 and if the provisions of Section 5 and proviso are not thus attracted, there cannot be any objection for registration of the document.

¶49

In that view of the matter, on presenting the document for registration, these aspects will be verified and the document will be duly registered, if otherwise in order. Therefore, the petitioner will present the document for registration within a period of two weeks along with a certified copy of the Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶52

ms

Veerabhadra Gounder.R. v. Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerabhadra Gounder.R. v. Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamad Niyas.T.a Vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Another

V.Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Babu Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Loona.P.K Vs Aboobacker

V.Murukan Vs the Tahsildar, Kuttanad

Venugopalan Nair Vs the Director