Allowed

Alekutty George v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2022WP(C)/1045/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sessions addressed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a rectification deed. The Court directed the petitioners to present the deed to the Sub Registrar for registration outside a specific Land Revenue Commissioner order, granting liberty to verify the property's identity.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to present Ext.P2 Rectification Document before the Sub Registrar within ten days for registration after hearing.

Alekutty George Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16 T H DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ALEKUTTY GEORGE AGED 42 YEARS

¶8

W/O LATE GEORGE, P.O.KARUVANCHAL, ALAKODE AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 571.

¶9

2 JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O LATE GEORGE, P.O.KARUVANCHAL, ALAKODE AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 571.

¶10

3 STELLA SCHARIYA, S/O LATE GEORGE, P.O.KARUVANCHAL, ALAKODE AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 571.

¶11

4 BENJAMIN GEORGE,

¶12

S/O LATE GEORGE, RESIDING AT DON BOSCO, PARASAIYANA HUNDI, MANADAYADI ROAD, SRIRAMPURA, NEAR POLICE CHECK POST MYSORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-57008.

¶13

5 ALPHONSA GEORGE,

¶14

D/O LATE GEORGE, S/O GEORGE P.O.KARUVANCHAL, ALAKODE AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 571.

¶15

6 RAJIMOL GEORGE,

¶16

D/O LATE GEORGE, PIEDADE APARTMENT F NO C-2, OPP BORKER SUPERSTORE, VIDYANAGAR AQUEM, MARGAO SALCETE, MARGOA SOURT, GOA-403601.

¶17

7 PUSHPAM THOMAS,

¶18

D/O LATE GEORGE, P.O.PULIKURUMBA, NEW NADUVIL AMSOM, NEDUVIL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 582.

¶19

8 ABILASH GEORGE,

¶20

S/O LATE GEORGE P.O.KARUVANCHAL, ALAKODE AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 571.

¶21

BY ADV A.C.VENUGOPAL

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶26

2 THE SUB RIGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ALAKODE P.O.KANNUR DIST, PIN-670 571.

¶27

BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶28

OTHER PRESENT:

¶29

SMT.K AMMINIKUTTY

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioners say that they had entered into Ext.P1 Partition Deed with respect to certain common properties, but it has been later found that some of the entries therein, particularly the boundaries were in error. They say that they, therefore, executed Ext.P2 rectification deed, so as to correct the boundaries and such other entries in Ext.P1; but that this has been refused to be accepted by the Sub Registrar saying that Ext.P2 can only be treated as a fresh title document .

¶35

The petitioners assert that the afore stand of the Sub Registrar is wholly irregular because, through Ext.P2, what is sought to be done is only to correct Ext.P1 and not to create any additional rights than what has been settled through the said

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶38

document.

¶39

The petitioners, therefore, pray that Sub

¶40

Registrar be directed to accept Ext.P2 and register it in terms of law, without any avoidable delay.

¶41

The afore request of the petitioners, as made by their learned counsel – Smt. Vidhya A.C.,

¶42

was answered by Sri.K.M.Faizal – learned Government Pleader, saying that Ext.P2 has not even

¶43

been presented before the Sub Registrar and therefore that, nothing can be imputed against him, as has been done by the petitioners in this writ petition. He submitted that, in any event of the matter, as regards Ext.P2, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, wherein, he has averred that since all the four boundaries of

¶44

the property involved in Ext.P1 are sought to be

¶45

¶46

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶47

corrected, it can only be treated as a fresh document, going by Ext.R2(a) order issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner. The learned Government Pleader thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶48

I have examined the averments in the

¶49

affidavit of the 2^nd respondent, as also the contens of Ext.R2(a).

¶50

Even though the 2^nd respondent says that Ext.R2(a) is a “general order”, it is not so, because it clearly indicates that the decision therein was confined to a particular case brought to the notice of the Land Revenue Commissioner. The question whether the errors in Ext.P1 can be corrected through Ext.P2; and if, because the boundaries of the property mentioned in the former document were in

¶51

error on all the four sides, it will have to be

¶52

¶53

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶54

construed as a fresh document, are not matters that this Court should decide at the first instance. However, I am certain that even if any such interpretation is brought, then cancellation of the first document will require to be done, because prima facie, there cannot be two separate title documents for the same property.

¶55

In the afore circumstances, I am of the firm opinion that petitioners must be given an opportunity of presenting Ext.P2 before the Sub Registrar, who should then consider registration of the same de hors Ext.R2(a) because, as I have already said above, it is not a general order, but one specifically to the facts of a case which was noticed by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶56

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and leave

¶57

¶58

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶59

liberty to the petitioners to present Ext.P2 Rectification Document before the 2^nd respondent – Sub Registrar; and if this is done within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶60

judgment, the said Authority will consider its registration de hors Ext.R2(a), after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶61

If, after the afore hearing, the Sub Registrar is to find that Ext.P2 cannot be registered for any reason, then a resultant order shall be issued specifying the reasons for his view, which shall then be communicated to the petitioners within the afore time frame, so as to allow them to take further recourse to law, as may be available to them.

¶62

After I dictated this part of the judgment, the

¶63

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶64

¶65

learned Government Pleader submitted that since the only intent of the Sub Registrar is to verify that Ext.P2 is not a fraudulent document, he may also be allowed to call for and peruse the prior title deeds, so that he can confirm that the property involved is the same as mentioned in Ext.P1. Certainly, this is a liberty which is available to the 2^nd respondent statutorily and I direct the petitioners to make available all relevant documents, if they are called upon to do so by the said Authority, so as to enable him to complete proceedings as ordered above.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶68

ANB

¶69

WP(C) NO. 1045 OF 2021

¶70

¶71

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1045/2021

¶72

RESPONDENT

¶73

Exhibit Exhibit R2(a):True copy of Order No.LR(A)3-48018/2011 of Land Revenue Commissioner of Kerala dated 02-122011 Exhibit Exhibit R2(a):True copy of Order No.LR(A)3-48018/2011 of Land Revenue Commissioner of Kerala dated 02-122011

¶74

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶75

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO 2624/1/2019 REGISTERED IN S.R.O ALAKODE DATED 1.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED DATED 22.10.2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR ONLINE TOKEN REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT

Alekutty George v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alekutty George v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

James K Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T. Mohanan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Salini Chandran Vs Manoj Kumar P.V.

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

T.Sudhakaran Nayar, Vs State of Kerala

Premabai Krishnapai Vs State of Kerala