Allowed

C.M.Mustaffa v. Additional Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Taluk

Kerala HC5 Nov 2020WP(C)/19850/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to issue Record of Rights (RoR) for his properties and to register sale deeds without producing the RoR certificate. The Court relied on precedents that RoR production is optional for registration and directed the 3rd respondent not to insist on it.

What did the court decide?

This Court directed the 3rd respondent not to insist on production of Record of Rights (RoR) certificate as a precondition for registering the assignment deed presented by the petitioner.

C.M.Mustaffa Vs Additional Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Taluk — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19850 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

C.M.MUSTAFFA, AGED 56 YEARS, CHUNDAKADAN HOUSE, PONJASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 547.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.JEN JAISON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 691.

¶11

2 VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 692.

¶12

3 SUB REGISTRAR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 691.

¶13

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.19850 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue Record of Rights to the petitioner in respect of the properties owned by him and covered under Ext.P1 tax receipt or in the alternative, for a direction

¶19

to the 3rd respondent to register the sale deeds to be executed by the petitioner without insisting for the production of RoR certificate.

¶20

The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 1 hectares 97 Ares and 91 square meters comprised in various survey numbers at Kottapady Village. Ext.P1 is the tax receipt evidencing the payment of tax in respect of the property owned by him. He was issued with a permit by the District Geologist for quarrying granite. Alleging violation of the quarrying permit and for quarrying outside the area, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is contended that the matter reached the Government and by order dated 11.4.2018 a joint inspection was ordered by the officers of the Revenue, Forest and Geology Departments. He contends that the joint inspection as ordered has not taken place. Later, when crimes were registered against the petitioner by the Forest Department, he approached

¶21

WP(C).No.19850 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

this Court and filed a writ petition seeking a direction to expedite the joint inspection as ordered by the Government by Ext.P3 order. This Court, by Ext.P4 judgment dated 09.01.2019, directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to ensure that the entire process of joint inspection was carried out with notice to the petitioner and to conclude the same within a period of five months. According to the petitioner, though more than two years have elapsed, no notice has been issued to him as ordered by this Court. He contends that he is now in dire financial straits and intends to dispose of the property owned by him. In the said circumstances, he approached the revenue authorities and applied for issuance of Record of Rights (RoR) certificate from the Village Officer. His grievance is that the 2nd respondent refused to issue Record of Rights on the ground that the District Geologist, Ernakulam had issued a demand notice claiming certain amounts from the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, he has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to issue the Record of Rights (RoR) to the petitioner in respect of his properties lying in Survey Numbers 307/1A-2-13, 307/1A-22-14, 320/1A-92-18, 320/1A-8612-2, 320/1A-69-T-4, 320/1A-10-26-2, 320/1A-10-26, 307/1A-2214-2, 320/1A-80-7, 320/1A-81-8, 320/1A-1-2 in Kottapady Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, Ernakulam District (properties covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipts), to the petitioner within a time limit fixed

¶25

WP(C).No.19850 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

by this Hon’ble Court.

¶28

(ii) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to register the sale deeds to be executed by the petitioner without insisting for the production of RoR certificate from the Village Officer, Kottapady.

¶29

I have heard Sri. Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel appearing

¶30

for the petitioner and Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶31

Sri. Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel, submits that what is sought to be assigned is that an item of property in respect of which the petitioner has absolute title and enjoyment. There are no interdictory orders restricting the alienation of the property. He would rely on the judgments of this Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and it was argued that the 3rd respondent cannot insist on the production of the Record of Rights certificate as a pre-condition for registering the document. According to the learned counsel, the only prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 3rd respondent not to insist for the production of RoR certificate as has been held by this Court.

¶32

This Court by order dated 12.10.2020 and 22.10.2020 had directed the learned Government Pleader to ascertain the present status of the joint inspection. It is submitted that the same has not been concluded.

¶33

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶34

WP(C).No.19850 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

This Court in Synudheen (supra ) and later in Jacob P.C. v.

¶37

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.

¶38

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent not to insist on production of Record of Rights (RoR) certificate as a precondition for registering the assignment deed presented before the said authority by the petitioner.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(C).No.19850 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPTS DATED 13.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAPADY VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 10.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2019 IN WPC NO.681/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER DATED 13.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION/REPRESENTATION DATED 07.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER (WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES).
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2019 IN WPC NO.125/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

¶50

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

C.M.Mustaffa v. Additional Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Mustaffa v. Additional Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Taluk

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

Akshay Kumar, Vs the Thasildar, Meenachil Thaluk

Santhosh Vs the District Collector

P.M.Vijayan Vs the Secretary

Mr. O a Ninan Vs the District Collector

O.K. Venugopal, Vs the District Collector

Manu Johnson Vs State of Kerala