Kerala High Court
Sinto Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 22547 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 SINTO MATHEW,AGED 39 YEARS
S/O MATHEW P.K, PARIDYADAN HOUSE,
KUTTIKADU DESOM, MOTHIRAKKANNI P.O.
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680724
2 MATHEW P.K.,AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. KOCHU VARKEY, PARIDYADAN HOUSE,
KUTTIKADU DESOM, MOTHIRAKKANNI P.O.
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680724
BY ADVS.
BIJU MARTIN
P.V.PAULSON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHALAKUDY,
CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,
OFFICE OF THE KIZHAKKE CHALAKKDY,, PIN - 680307
4 THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT OFFICER,
PHENOMINAL GROUP, 68/2677, KR PANKAJAKSHAN ROAD,
AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM NORTH, PIN - 682018
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.22547 of 2023 2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) No.22547 of 2024
.................................................................
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have approached this court challenging Ext.P7 order whereby the 3rd respondent declined to issue ROR certificate for the reason that there are court attachments in respect of the subject property. The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2 nd petitioner who are owners of the subject property purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed. It is contended on the strength of Ext.P2 that there were no attachments over the said property while executing Ext.P1 deed and the property was mutated in the name of the petitioners. A certain amount due under the purchase of the property could not be paid to Phenomenal Company Ltd from whom the petitioners purchased the property, in view of Ext.P3 freezing order issued by the police authorities. In W.P.(C) No.5471 of 2019, filed by a claimant seeking realization of money from the company, Ext.P4 order was issued and based on the same, the balance amount towards sale consideration was deposited before the 4th respondent. Now the 2 nd petitioner wants to transfer his undivided rights and shares over Ext.P1 property to the 1st petitioner and Ext.P6 draft settlement deed was WP(C) No.22547 of 2023 3 prepared. Petitioner submits that though a prohibitory order was issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, the same was also lifted as per Ext.P5 order. For registration of the deed, petitioners approached the 3 rd respondent for issuance of an ROR certificate which was declined as per Ext.P7 stating that there are several attachments over the property. A statement has been filed by the 3 rd respondent holding that there are several attachments over the property and that is why ROR certificate was not issued. But it is admitted in the statement that the mutation of the property was effected in favour of the petitioners as there was no attachment or liability at that point of time.
2. The request made by the petitioners for the issuance of an ROR certificate is for registering Ext.P6 settlement deed. This Court in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another, 2020 (4) KHC 167 has held that the production of an ROR certificate is only optional and cannot be made mandatory for registration purposes and the registering authority has no jurisdiction to refuse registration on the mere ground that parties have not produced ROR certificate in respect of the property. In view of the above, since the production of an ROR certificate is only optional, as held by this Court in Jacob P.C.'s case cited supra, registration cannot be denied for the sole reason that ROR certificate is not produced.
WP(C) No.22547 of 2023 4
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to accept Ext.P6 settlement deed for registration and register the same without insisting for an ROR certificate if Ext.P6 settlement deed is in order and if there are no other impediments for registration of the Ext.P6 settlement deed.
With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks WP(C) No.22547 of 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22547/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
2360/1/2017 DATED 02.09.2017 OF
CHALAKKUDY SRO
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED
08.09.2017
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE CBCID SP
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2021
IN W.P. (C ) NO. 5471 OF 2019
Exhibit P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DIRECTORATE
OF ENFORCEMENT F. NO.
ECIR/01/KCZO/2018/977 DATED 28.03.2023
& LETTER DATED 17.12.2021
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SETTLEMENT DEED
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 1463/2023
DATED 29.05.2023 ALONG WITH ATTACHMENT
DETAILS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT