Disposed

Dhanesh v. the Inspector General of Registration

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018WP(C)/3982/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchasers challenged proceedings seeking cancellation of their sale-deed registrations and mutation notices. The court directed that no further cancellation action be pursued under Section 83A. It preserved recourse under Section 82 subject to a hearing, left mutation objections to the Tahsildar, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No further action on the cancellation complaint underlying Ext.P-18; hearing safeguards directed for any proposed Section 82 action and consideration of mutation objections.

Dhanesh Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 3982 of 2018

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 DHANESH, S/O VIJAYAN,AGED 38, PUTHENPURA NIKARTHIL, PANAVALLY P.O, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 526.

¶8

2 ABHILASH, S/O.PARTHAN, AGED 29, KALAMPUKATTU NIKARTHIL, PANAVALLY P.O, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 526.

¶9

3 K.R.RATHEESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 33, KALAMPUKATTU NIKARTHIL, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 526.

¶10

4 M.K.RAJAPPAN, S/O.KUNJANKAN AGED 68, MUKKIDICHIRAYIL, NADUVATHUNAGAR P.O, AROOKUTTY VILLAGE, THURUTHIBHAGAM MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 526. BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, SOUTH & MIDDLE ZONE, C.C.40/1015, PERUMPILLY BUILDING, II FLOOR, NEAR MAHARAJAS METRO STATION, HEAD POST OFFICE, KOCHI -682 011.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ALAPPUZHA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.

¶15

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PANAVALLY ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 526.

¶16

WP(C).No. 3982 of 2018 (W)

¶17

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,. CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶18

6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶19

OPP. DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA -688 011.

¶20

7. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 524.

¶21

8. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 526.

¶22

9. JOSU DEVASSIA, S/O.M.P.DEVASSIA,

¶23

AGED 38, MANOORETTONIL, CHETHIMATTAM P.O.,

¶24

PALA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AND BROTHER JIN DEVASSIA, S/O.M.P.DEVASSIA, AGED 45, MANNOORETTONIL, CHETHIMATTAM P.O,

¶25

PALA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,

¶26

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶27

R1 TO R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT A.C.VIDHYA

¶28

R9 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

K.V.

¶31

WP(C).No. 3982 of 2018 (W)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ----------
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO. 1732/17 DATED 19.8.2017, OF THE S.R.O.,PANAVALLY.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO. 1733/17 DATED 19.8.2017, OF THE S.R.O., PANAVALLY.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO. 1734/17 DATED 19.8.2017, OF THE S.R.O., PANAVALLY.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.1735/17 DATED 19.8.2017, OF THE S.R.O., PANAVALLY.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.09.2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.09.2017 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.09.2017 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.09.2017 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO. LA 1842/1969 DATED 29.1.1970 OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO. LA 20/1974 DATED 11.6.1974 OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO. LA 14/1982 DATED 15.7.1991 OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OFT HE PLAINT DATED 15.11.2017 IN O.S NO.599/2017 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 IN I.A.NO.3444/2017 IN O.S. NO.599/2017 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 28.11.2017 IN O.S.NO.627/2017 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2017 IN I.A.NO.3594/2017 IN O.S.NO.627/2017 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 1.12.2017 IN O.S.NO.635/2017 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 4.12.2017 IN O.S.NO.638/2017 OF THE MUNISIFF COURT, CHERTHALA.
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 6.12.2017 OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

WP(C).No. 3982 of 2018 (W)

¶35

EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/EXPLANATION DATED 8.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/EXPLANATION DATED 8.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/EXPLANATION DATED 8.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/EXPLANATION DATED 8.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P25	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P26	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS ------------	EXHIBITS: ---------
R9(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DED NO 1398/10.
R9(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 443/16.
R9(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DED NO 673/2006.
R9(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKAL DATED 26.3.2018 BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
R9(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
R9(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.4.2018 OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
R9(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND OBTAINED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
R9(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR, PANAVALLY
R9(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DECREE IN OS NO 867/2003 DATED 19.1.2004 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA.

¶36

WP(C).No. 3982 of 2018 (W)

¶37

R9(J) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 309/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,CHERTHALA R9(K) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

¶38

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 17.07.2018

¶39

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(C).No. 3982 of 2018

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2018 J U D G M E N T

¶44

The petitioners 1 to 4 herein claim that they are having ownership and possession of the properties covered by Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds respectively and that they have paid tax in respect of those properties Exts.P-5 to P-8 land tax receipts. They would also state that they had obtained those properties from one Vinoji, on whom the properties belonging his father, Pavithran, had devolved. Further that Pavithran had obtained the properties by Ext.P-9 and P-10 pattas. It is the further case of the petitioners that contesting respondent No.9 had purchased 15.400 cents lying adjacent to the petitioners property, which in turn originally belonged to one Kumaran Vijayan, who obtained it by Ext.P-11 pattta, it is stated. That R-9 had purchased the said property by two sale deeds as per Exts. R9(a) and R-9(b) and that R-9 (c) is the prior title deed of Sri.Jojo. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the extent of land shown in Ext.P-11 is only 15.400 cents, whereas R-9 is now claiming 51.400 cents (in this regard R-9's case is that the prior title deed of Jojo Ext. R-9 (c) would show the extent of land as 51.4 cents). It is the further allegation of the petitioners that R-9 had trespassed

¶45

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 2 :-

¶46

into the properties of 3^rd and 4^th petitioners. That the 4^th petitioner had filed Ext.P-12 suit seeking fixation of boundary and injunction in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P-4 to P-8. That in Ext.P-12 suit, the Munsiff had passed Ext.P-13 interim order of injunction against further trespass. That so also, the 3^rd petitioner had filed Ext.P-14 suit for injunction pertainng to the property covered by Ext.P- 3 and P-7 and that the Munsiff had passed Ext.P-15 interim order of injunction therein.

¶47

Further it is stated that R-9 had filed Exts.P-16 and P-17 suits against petitioners 3 and 4. That in Ext.P-16 suit, the relief sought for is for a declaration that Exts.P-3 and P-4 sale deeds are not binding on them and to restrain 3^rd and 4^th petitioners from entering into the said properties and the extent of property shown therein is 51.400 cents. Further that in Ext.P-17 suit filed by R-9, the relief sought for is to set aside Exts.P-1 and P-2 sale deeds and to restrain petitioners 2 and 3 from entering into the said property.

¶48

Further it is stated that R-9 had filed application dated 6.12.2017 before the Minister for Registration seeking cancellation of Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds. That the office of the Minister had in turn forwarded the said application to R-2 (DIG, Registration) for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. That consequently R-2 had issued Ext.P-18 notice dated 20.12.2017 on the basis of the

¶49

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 3 :-

¶50

said application dated 6.12.2017. That as against Ext.P-18 notice, the petitioners had submitted Exts.P- 19 to P-22 objections.

¶51

The petitioners would also raise certain averments with regard to the issuance of the impugned Exts.P-23 to P-26 proceedings at the instance of the 7^th respondent Tahsildar Cherthala, in respect of the matters connected with mutation of the petitioners' properties. It is in the light of these factual aspects that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

¶52

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P-18 and all proceedings pursuant thereto, viz., Exts.P23 to P26 after calling for the records leading thereto; and

¶53

b) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶54

The main ground urged by the petitioners is that the prayer in the application dated 6.12.2017 submitted by R-9, which is referred in Ext.P-18 notice, is only to cancel Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds. The said petition dated 6.12.2017, referred to in Ext.P-18 notice dated 20.12.2017, as given on pages 82 and 83 of the paper of the Writ Petition, reads as follows:

¶55

" ബഹ�മ�നപ�ട ക�രള� പ��ത�മര�മത� - രജ�സക��ഷൻ വ�� മ�� അവറ��ൾ മ�മ�പ�

¶56

ഹർജ�ക�രൻ

¶57

കജ�സ� കദവസസയക� കവണ� ��യ�നപറ

¶58

മ�കസ�രക�രന�ന സകഹ�ദരന�മ�യ�

¶59

ജ�ന കദവസസ� , മണ-ർ എപട�ന�ൽ ,

¶60

പ1ത�മറന , ��ല� �� . ഒ .

¶61

എതസ�ക��ൾ

¶62

1. സസലൻ , ആഞ�ല��റമ� , ��ണ�വള�

¶63

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 4 :-

¶64

2. വ�ജയൻ , �ളമ��ട;പവള�യ�ൽ , ��ണ�വള� .

¶65

3. കമ�ഹനൻ , ആഞ�ല��റമ� , ��ണ�വള�

¶66

4. ��ർ ത�ക�യൻ , ആഞ�ല��റമ� ( അനബ��ത�ര�ത� ), ��ണ�വള� .

¶67

5. എന . പ� . ര�ജ�ൻ , മ�ക��ച�റയ�ൽ , നദ വത� നഗർ �� . ഒ .

¶68

6. ധകനഷ , ��തൻ ന��ർ ത� , ��ണ�വള� .

¶69

7. അഭ�ല�ഷ , �ളമ��ട ന��ർത� ,

¶70

��ണ�വള� .

¶71

8. രതCഷ , �ളമ�ക�ട� ന��ർത� , ��ണ�വള� .

¶72

9. വ�കന�ജ� , ശ�വസശലന , �റവEർ �� . ഒ .

¶73

10. ബ�ജ� , ബ�ജ� മന�രന , ��ണ�വള� .

¶74

11. ബ�ബ� , ബ�ജ� മന�രന , ��ണ�വള� .

¶75

12. സ�ജ�ത , സ�ദർ ശനൻ ഭ�രസ� , ��യ�കര വCട , സവകന �� . ഒ .

¶76

13. ബ�ന� , ബ�ബ�ര�ജ ഭ�രസ� ,

¶77

പത�ണ-റ��ണ� വCട , സവറ�ല �� . ഒ .

¶78

14. ബCന , ജയഷ�ൻ ഭ�രസ� , �ളത��റമ�ൽ വCട , സവ��ൻ �� . ഒ .

¶79

15. അമ�ണ� , ബ�ജ� മന�രന , ��ണ�വള� .

¶80

16. അഗസ�ൻ �� . എ ., ത��യ�നതറ , മണ�;റന , ( ആധ�രപമഴ�ത��രൻ )

¶81

ഹർജജസസരര

¶82

ആല�;ഴ ജ�ലKയ�ൽ ക1ർതല ത�ലEക�ൽ കവമന�ട� ��യല�ൽ ��ണ�വള� വ�കലKജ�ൽ അഞ�ത�ര�ത� അനബ��ത�ര�ത� എന� അറ�യപ��ന ഒര� പ1റ�യ ദMCപ ഉണ� . �� ദMC��ൽ 1964 ��ലഘടന മ�തൽ സ�വശക�രന ബഹ�മ�നപ�ട ക1ർതല തഹസ�ൽദ�ർ �ടയന നൽ��യ�ട;ളത�ന അ��രന �ടയന ലഭ�ച വ�ജയൻ തCറ� നൽ��യത�പന ത��ർന� �� കദശത� എന�ക� സർകQ 266/1- ൽ 51.400 പസനR വസത� സ�വശ�ന�ഭവത�ല�ന അന�ഭവത�ല�ന ഉളത�ന �� വസത� ഞ�ൻ കവല�പ�ട� സനരക�ച;വര�നത�മ��ന� .

¶83

കമൽ വ�വര�ച എനപറ സ�വശത�ല�ളത�മ�യ വസത�വ�നപറ ½ ��കല� മCറർ പതക� വശന �വ��തൻ എന വസക�ക� സർപQ 266/1-95- ൽ 14.16 ആർസ വസത� എൽ . എ .1842/68- ആന നമർ ന�� രവ�ന സർകQ 266/1-103- ൽ 09.16 ആർസ വസത� എൽ . എ .20/74- ആന നമർ ന�� രവ�ന ഉപണന�ന �റയപ��ന� . കമൽ വ�വര�ച

¶84

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 5 :-

¶85

�വ��തന�ന , ��യ�നപറ സകഹ�ദരന�യ �തന�ഭന�മ�യ� ക1ർതല മ�ൻസ�ഫ ക��ത�യ�ൽ ഒ . എസ� .867/2003- ആന നമര�യ� ഒര� ക�സ;ണ�യ�ര�നത�ന �� ക�സ�ൽ വ�ദ� - ��ത��ൾ തമ�ൽ ര�ജ�യ�യത�പന ത��ർന� �� ക�സ�ൽ ഒര� ര�ജ�

¶86

വ�ധ�യ�ണ�യത�മ��ന� . അ��രമ�ണ�യ ര�ജ� ഡ��യ�ൽ �� വസത�വ�നപറ ന�ല� അത�ര��ള;ന കരഖപ��ത�യ�ട;ളത�മ��ന� . �� ര�ജ�ഹർജ� ��ർ�� ഇത� സഹ�തന ഹജര�ക�യ�ട;ളത�മ��ന� .

¶87

എന�ൽ എപന വഞ�ച� എനപറ വസത� സ�വശപ��ത��പയന ലകസകത��E�� ½ ��കല� മCറർ മ�റ� സ�ത� പ1യ;ന എൽ . എ .1842/68, എൽ . എ .20/74 എനC നമർ ന��ള�ൽപ�ട വസത�വ�നപറ ബലത�ൽ എനപറ സ�വശമ�ര�� വസത�വ�നപറ അത�ര��ള�ട� എന�ക� വസത� നൽ��യ വ�ജയനപറ ബന� ധകനഷ , ��യ�നപറ സഹ1�ര��ള�യ സഷലൻ , ര�ജ�ൻ , അബ�ല�ഷ , രതCഷ എന�വർ ��ണ�വള� സബ� രജ�സ��ർ ഓഫCസ�ൽ 1732/2017, 1733/2017, 1734/2017, 1735/2017 എന�ങപന ന�ല ആധ�രങൾ ജന��ച� ക��ത�യ�ൽ ഹ�ജര�ക�യത�വഴ� ��ത��ൾ ഇൻഡസൻ ശ�ക� ന�യമന 193, 196 എനC വ��;�ൾ ��രന ��റന പ1യത�ട;ളത�മ��ന� . �E��പത ക��ത�യ�പ� ഡ��യക� വ��രCതമ�യ� കരഖ 1മച� ഉണ�ക�� വഴ� ഇൻഡസൻ ശ�ക� ന�യമന 466, 471 എനC വ��;�ൾ ��രന ഗbരവമ�ള ഒര� ��റന �E�� പ1യത�ര�ക�ന� . ല�ഭന എന�ൽ ന�ന�ന അനസ�യമ�യ ഉണ�കണപമന ലകസകത��E�� എനപറ വസത�വ�നപറ എല��ൾ ക1ർത� �� ള ��മ�ണന ജന��ചത�ന� കശഷന എനപറ �കൽ ആള;�പള �റഞ�വ�ട� ഭCമമ�യ ത�� ക1�ദ� ക��യ�ന അത�വഴ� ��ത��ൾ എപന വഞ�ക��യ�ന ആയത�വഴ� വഞന��റന പ1യത�ട;ളത�മ��ന� .

¶88

ആ�യ�ൽ സമകത�പല ദയവ�ണ�യ� കമൽ വ�വര�ച ആധ�രങൾ റദ; പ1യത�ന ഇ��രന �ളവ�യ ആധ�രങൾ ജന��ചത�ന ന�യമ ന��ൾ സMC�ര� ക�വ�ന�ന അക�ക�ക�ന� .

¶89

2017- മ�ണ� ഡ�സനബർ മ�സന 06- ആന തCയത� .

¶90

വ�കധയകത�പ� ജ�ന കദവസസ� "

¶91

It can be seen from a perusal of the said petition that the prayer sought for is for a direction from the 2^nd respondent DIG Registration to cancel the registrations with respect to Exts.P-1 to P-4 sale deeds. The petitioners would contend that the only provision engrafted in the Registration Act which confers power on the Registration Officer

¶92

to cancel the registration is as per Sec. 83A, which reads as follows:

¶93

“Sec.83A: Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases.- (1) If

¶94

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 6 :-

¶95

on enquiry by an officer in the Registration Department not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, it is found that some one has falsely personated another, and in such assumed character presented, admitted the execution and got registered any document by a registering officer and the existence of such a document is detrimental to the interest of another person, the same shall be cancelled by the Inspector General of Registration on application made to him in such form as may be prescribed.

¶96

(2) If on an enquiry conducted by the District Collector suo motu or on the basis of a complaint received by him, it is found that any Government land or land owned by a public sector undertaking, has been transferred on the strength of a document which is got registered without following the procedure prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 71, the District Collector may make recommendation to the Inspector General of Registration to cancel the registration of such document.

¶97

(3) On receipt of such recommendation from the District Collector, the Inspector General of Registration shall have the authority to cancel the registration of such document after following such procedure as may be prescribed.”

¶98

That in the instant case, a mere reading of the said petition dated 6.12.2017 (on which Ext.P-18 notice has been issued) would clearly show that no such averments, which constitute the jurisdictional facts of Sec. 83A are even remotely contained therein and therefore the 2^nd respondent DIG of Registration has no power whatsoever to cancel the registration pertaining to Exts.P-1 to P-4 documents and that this Court should hold that the 2^nd respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters in the said petition dated 6.12.2017 submitted by the 9^th respondent, etc.

¶99

On the basis of the provisions contained in Sec.83A the specific contention urged by the petitioners is that the said provisions contained in Sec. 83A could be invoked only if on enquiry by an officer in the Registration Department not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, comes to the fact finding

¶100

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 7 :-

¶101

that someone has falsely personated another, and in such assumed character presented, admitted the execution and got registered any document by a registering officer, etc.

¶102

The 2^nd respondent DIG Registration has now filed statement dated 30.6.2018 and paras 4 and 5 of the said statement read as follows:

¶103

“4. It is submitted that Exhibit P18 is the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent, as per the order of the Hon'ble Minister of Registration, for conducting hearing on the complaint submitted by the 9^th respondent through his authorized agent Sri.Jim Devasaya on 06.12.2017. As per the above notices all the executants except Smt.Sujatha were present. From the depositions of executants of documents, they have admitted that the four boundaries mentioned in the above documents were not correct and so they are ready to register a rectification deed by correcting the boundaries of the property in the documents if any demand arises from the part of the claimant. On the basis of enquiry and after hearing the parties, Ext. R9(g) report was submitted by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent. In Ext. R9(g) report of the 2^nd respondent it is stated that the issue in the complaint could be solved either via bilateral negotiation or through approaching a appropriate Civil Court. Also it is found in the enquiry that there was a laxity on the part of Document Writer Sri.A.Augustine (Licensee No.ADA 120) in mentioning the exact boundaries of the property transacted by the documents and also recommended to take disciplinary action under Kerala Document Writers License Rules, 1960. No laxity has been found on the part of the Registering Officer. It is also affirmed that the 9^th respondent has not set out any allegation under Section 83A of Registration Act, 1908 in his complaint and no evidence has been found in the enquiry to initiate proceeding under the above section. Section 83 A of the Registration Act, 1908 provides the power to Inspector General of Registration for the cancellation of a deed, if it is registered as impersonation only.

¶104

5. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent was not aware regarding various cases mentioned in the writ petition till the hearing date 08.01.2018. The Exhibits P23, P24, P25 notices has been issued by officials of Revenue Department in separate proceedings as per Transfer of Registry Rules.”

¶105

Thus it has been fairly stated by the 2^nd respondent DIG of

¶106

Registration in the abovesaid statement, more particularly in para 4 thereof, that after conducting the inquiry, in respect of the abovesaid petition on which Ext.P-18 notice has been issued it has been found

¶107

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 8 :-

¶108

that the 9^th respondent has not set out any allegation under Sec. 83 of the Registration Act in the said complaint and that no evidence whatsoever has been found in the inquiry to initiate proceedings under Sec.83A of the Registration Act, as the said provision confers power on him only if it pertains to impersonation, etc. as referred to in that provision, etc. It is also stated in para 4 of the said statement of the 2^nd respondent that, from the depositions of the executants of the documents it is seen that they had admitted that the four boundaries mentioned in the above documents were not correct and so they are ready to register a rectification deed by correcting the boundaries of the property in the documents, if demand arises from the part of the claimant, etc.

¶109

In the light of the abovesaid specific fact finding made by the 2^nd respondent it is only to be ordered that no further action is required to be pursued in relation to the petition dated 6.12.2017, on which Ext.P-18 notice has been issued, as no case has been made out to take action in terms of Sec. 83 A of the Registration Act.

¶110

The 9^th respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 13.5.2018 producing Exts.R-9(a) to R-9(h) documents and has also filed an additional affidavit dated 3.7.2018, wherein he has produced Exts. R-9 (i) to R-9 (k) documents.

¶111

Now it is submitted by Sri.Roy Chacko, learned counsel

¶112

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 9 :-

¶113

appearing for the 9^th respondent that his party has filed petition dated 26.3.2018 [produced as Ext.R-9 (h) along with the said counter affidavit] wherein he has requested the 4^th respondent Sub Registrar, Panavally, Alappuzha District that necessary prosecution steps may be taken against the petitioners for making wrong statements in the execution of the sale deeds, as per Exts.P-1 to P-4, etc. Though the petitioners in Ext. R-9(h) have also stated that offences under Secs. 193 and 196 of the I.P.C. are made out, etc. Sri.Roy Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the 9^th respondent would submit that necessary powers are conferred on the Registration Official concerned to take requisite action if the requisite parameters under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec. 82 of the Registration Act are fulfilled, etc. Sec.82 of the Registration Act reads as follows:

¶114

Sec.82: Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment. whoever--

¶115

(a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or

¶116

(b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under this act or the rules made thereunder a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or

¶117

(c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or

¶118

(d) abets anything made punishable by this Act; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to Seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶119

The main matters under challenge in this Writ Petition at

¶120

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 10 :-

¶121

the behest of the petitioners is regarding the issue as to whether R-2 has jurisdiction under Sec. 83(a) of the Registration Act, to deal with the said petition dated 6.12.2017, on which Ext.P-18 notice has been issued. That aspect has already been addressed by this Court as dealt with herein above. However, it is made clear that nothing in this judgment will preclude the 9^th respondent, if he is so convinced that the parameters under Sec.82 of the Registration Act are fulfilled to agitate such issues before the competent Registration official concerned. If any such action is proposed on Ext.R-9(h) representation of the 9^th respondent, then needless to say, the competent registration official concerned should afford a reasonable

¶122

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well. Sri.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no action is called for in terms of the provisions contained in Sec.82 of the Registration Act in respect of the matters covered by Ext.R-9 (h) petition and further that as serious litigative proceedings are pending between the parties, it is not right and proper for the registration official concerned to now again deal with the matters in Ext.R-9(h) and that as the right course of action is to await until the conclusion of the civil litigative proceedings. This Court is not now inclined to go into any of these issues and it is for the petitioners to raise any such objections, if occasion in that regard actually arises for

¶123

W.P.(C).3982/18 - : 11 :-

¶124

consideration.

¶125

Further it appears that the matters in relation to the impugned proceedings at Exts.P-23 to P-26 are in respect of the proceedings initiated by the 7^th respondent Tahsildar Cherthala on matters connected with the mutation of the petitioners' properties. It appears from the pleadings on record that the petitioners have not so far filed their objections or responses to Exts.P-23 to P-26. It is for the petitioners to submit their responses/objections in respect of the matters covered by Exts.P-23 to P-26 before the 7^th respondent and it is for that respondent to deal with the matter in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. If, after that process the petitioners have any grievances in that regard, it is for them to work out their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, it is not right and proper for this Court to consider on merits any of the aspects relating to Exts. P-23 to P-26.

¶126

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶127

sdk+

¶128

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶129

P.S. to Judge

Dhanesh v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wilson K.G. Vs the District Collector

Baiju Kumar Vs the Tahasildar

Praveen.N.D Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Thomson @ Tomy Vs the State of Kerala

Divine Trust Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh T.S Vs State of Kerala