Allowed

Khaja Sharafudheen v. the District Collector

Kerala HC20 Oct 2020WP(C)/19388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted relief to the petitioner filing under Article 226, directing the Sub Registrar to register the proposed relinquishment deed without making the RoR certificate mandatory for registration, citing precedents. The Court set a three-week timeline for presenting the document for official examination and action.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to present the document before the 4th respondent within three weeks; the 4th respondent shall examine it and act per the Registration Act, 1908.

Khaja Sharafudheen Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 28TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19388 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KHAJA SHARAFUDHEEN,

¶8

S/O. KHAJA IBRAHIM, CHERACHAM VEETIL, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 109

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 505

¶12

2 THE THAHSILDAR, TIRUR, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-676 101

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NIRAMARADUR VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-676 109

¶14

4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-676 101

¶15

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.19388 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The above-captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to perform the registration of a proposed relinquishment deed without insisting for production of Record of Rights (RoR) certificate.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached the 4th respondent to get registered a relinquishment deed. The property is subject to certain attachment and the petitioner is intending to purchase the property along with the liability. The petitioner approached the 4th respondent to get the property registered and in the deed presented, he has mentioned about the court attachments and the pending litigations. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent refused to register the deed on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the RoR certificate. It is in the above background that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions.

¶22

Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that no records have been produced by the petitioner to show that the document was in fact presented before the 4th respondent and that an order under Section 76 of the Registration Act, 1908 was passed by the Registrar refusing registration. It is submitted that if the document is presented, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed.

¶23

WP(C).No.19388 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the document would not be registered if the RoR certificate is not produced. This Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Anothe r [2020 (4) KHC 167] have 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.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to present the document before the 4th respondent, within a period of three weeks from today. If the document is presented as above, the 4th respondent shall examine the same and act in terms of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

DSV

¶31

WP(C).No.19388 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF PROPERTY RE-SURVEY 369/3 AND 372/2 OF NIRAMARUTHUR VILLAGE.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 52/2018 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 56/2018 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER VIDE IA NO. 743/2018 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 52/2018 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER VIDE IA NO. 816/2018 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 56/2018 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR.

¶39

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED RELINQUISHMENT TRANSFER DEED.

¶40

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 15.07.19.

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Khaja Sharafudheen v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Sharafudheen 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

Sivaraman V.P. Vs the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

P. K. Nazer Vs State of Kerala

Akhila Lal Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Subramanian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.a.Unnimon Vs State of Kerala