Allowed

Jayaprasad Pillai v. the District Collector

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020WP(C)/10258/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition where petitioners, who purchased land in 2010, sought a Record of Rights certificate from the District Collector. The Collector refused, citing pending revenue recovery against the seller. The Court held that refusal was unjustified and directed issuance within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to issue the certified Record of Rights certificate within eight weeks.

Jayaprasad Pillai Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.10258 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JAYAPRASAD PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. JANARDANAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT ERIKKAVU DESOM, KUMARAPURAM, KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 690 516.

¶9

2 SHALINI PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶10

W/O. JAYAPRASAD PILLAI, RESIDING AT ERIKAKVU DESOM, KUMARAPURAM, KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 690 516.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.RAJIT

¶13

SMT.PARVATHY MANOJ

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶16

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARTHATT VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 521.

¶17

3 THE TAHASILDAR, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 503.

¶18

4 DR. SHANTIMADOM RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. SHANTIMADOM NARAYANAN, HOUSE NO. 130, NANYATTUKUNNAM, PARAVUR ERNAKULAM 683 520.

¶19

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.10258 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners state that they are the owners in title and possession of property having an extent of 1.21 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.17/12 of the Arthatt Village. The said property was acquired by the petitioners in the year 2010 from the 4th respondent on the cover of Ext.P1 sale deed.

¶25

The petitioners state that with a view to assign the property,

¶26

they approached the 2nd respondent and submitted an application for issuance of Record of Rights certificate under the Record of Rights Act, 1968. Their grievance is that the 2nd respondent refused to consider their request on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the properties of the 4th respondent.

¶27

According to the petitioners, Ext.P2 encumbrance certificate issued to the petitioners by the Registration Department would not reveal that there is an existing charge on the property covered under Ext.P1. It is further contended that insofar as the dues to the 4th respondent is concerned, this Court by Ext.P4 judgment has ordered the proceedings to be kept in abeyance. It is in the above backdrop that they have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue the RoR in

¶28

WP(C).No.10258 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

respect of the property covered under Ext.P1 in an expeditious manner.

¶31

I have heard Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶32

It appears from Ext.P1 that the property was purchased by

¶33

them as early as on 1.1.2010. Ext.P2 certificate does not reveal that there are any encumbrances in respect of the above property. Section 10 of the Record of Rights Act, 1968 mandates that certified copies of the entries in the Record of Rights shall be granted by such officer on payment of the requisite fees. The respondents have not been able to give any convincing reason as to why the Record of Rights as requested by the petitioners is not being issued to them in spite of submission of Ext.P3. Furthermore, t his Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167] has held that production of RoR certificate is only optional and cannot be made mandatory and the registration officials concerned will not have jurisdiction to refuse registration on the mere ground that the party who presents the document has not produced the RoR certificate in respect of the property concerned.

¶34

Having considered the facts of the case in all angles, I find no justification on the part of the respondents in refusing to issue the Record of Rights certificate requested for by the petitioners.

¶35

WP(C).No.10258 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue the certified copy of the Record of Rights in respect of property covered under Exhibit P1 on the petitioners remitting the requisite fees. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶38

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(C).No.10258 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 01.01.2010.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 27.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2019.

¶49

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29763 OF 2019 DATED 06.11.2019.

¶50

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Jayaprasad Pillai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprasad Pillai v. the District Collector

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

Johny Thomas Vs District Collector

Ramesh M.B., Vs the Transport Commissioner

Thankaraj Vs State of Kerala

P.Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Annamma Joseph Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Indus Towers Limited, Vs the District Police Chief