Allowed

V.Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 May 2012WP(C)/3549/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with writ petitions challenging the requirement to produce a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Authority for registering sale deeds. The Court held that Revenue Officials cannot interdict a registering authority from registering a sale deed if the document complies with the Registration Act, and directed the Sub Registrar to register the documents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub Registrar to register the documents if they comply with the provisions of the Registration Act and Registration Rules.

V.Manikandan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3549 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.MANIKANDAN, AGED 33 YEARS

¶8

S/O. VASUMALAI, DOOR NO.1012, PETTIMUDI DIVISION DEVIKULAM TALUK, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR IDUKKI CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶16

IDUKKI COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶17

5. THE SUB REGISTRAR

¶18

DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 4119/2012, WPC. 4730/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

SU/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 3549 of 2012 (P)

¶23

-2-

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA POSSESSED BY THE SELLER.

¶28

EXT.P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POSSESSION ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KDH VILLAGE DTD.3.10.2011.

¶29

EXT.P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L.A., DEVIKULAM.

¶30

EXT.P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD.10.10.2011.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SU/-

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶36

- - - - W.P.(C)Nos.3549,4119 & 4730 of 2012

¶37

¶38

Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2012

¶39

All these writ petitions are concerned with a common issue. The petitioners are aggrieved by the stand taken by the Sub Registrar to produce a No Objection Certificate from Revenue Authority for registering the documents therein.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader as well. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision reported in Selvam v. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 508) wherein it is held that the Revenue Officials are not legally competent or entitled to interdict a registering authority under Registration Act from registering a sale deed on the ground that subject matter of document is suspected to be a revenue puramboke land. It is submitted that the Special Leave Petition No.9426 of 2010 was also dismissed. Therefore the decision of this Court has become

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

W.P.(C)Nos.3549,4119 & 4730 of 2012

¶43

final.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the requirement to produce NOC cannot be put against the petitioners as a condition for registering the document. There will be a direction to the Sub Registrar, before whom the documents are presented for registration, to duly register the same, if the same is complied with all the provisions of the Registration Act and Registration Rules.

¶45

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶46

kkj

V.Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Manikandan v. State of Kerala

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

Deepthi Gopinath Vs Ajithkumar, I.A.S

Sathi.K. Vs Dist.Collector, Ernakulam

Dileep Kumar Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

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

Rajeesh Babu Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

P.K.Vikraman Vs the Executive Officer