Kerala High Court
K.R.Chandrandhan Pillai vs Village Officer on 2 February, 2021
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.18679 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
K.R.CHANDRANDHAN PILLAI
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.K.N.RAGHAVAN PANICIKER, SREE VIJAYAM HOUSE,
PANTHALAM P.O., PIN - 689 501,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT SANHRIDAYA
ENCLAVE KOTTAPPADI, CHEMMANNOOR ROAD,
IRIGINJAPPURAM P.O, PIN - 680103, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA
SMT.JENNY THANKAM
SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 VILLAGE OFFICER
ARTHATU P.O. ARTHATU, PIN- 680 521,
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTER
KUNNAMKULAM, P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, PIN - 680 523,
THRISSUR.
SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.18679 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 1st respondent in issuing Record of Rights certificate in respect of an item of property owned by the petitioner herein, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to insist for production of RoR certificate in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another1.
2. The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 3 cents comprised in Re-survey No.127/12 of the Arthatt Village purchased by him on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed vide No. 397/2009 of the Kunnamkulam SRO. He states that he has been remitting tax which fact is evident from Ext.P2. The petitioner would also refer to Ext.P5 encumbrance certificate which is dated 4.12.2020 to bring home his point that the property is not subject to any encumbrance. According to the petitioner, he wanted to purchase another property for which he decided to sell the property covered under Ext.P1. He approached the 1st respondent and filed Ext.P4 application seeking to issue the RoR certificate. However, his request was not acceded to. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent 1 [2020 (4) KHC 167] WP(C).No.18679 OF 2020 3 to issue the RoR in respect of the property in an expeditious manner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that the property was purchased by the petitioner from Dr.Radhakrishnan, Santhimadom Builders and the said person is facing revenue recovery proceedings. It is stated that since such proceedings are pending, if the petitioner is permitted to sell out the property, it would adversely affect the revenue recovery proceedings against the aforesaid Radhakrishnan.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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. Ext.P1 sale deed would reveal that the petitioner herein had purchased the property from Dr.Radhakrishnan on 11.2.2009. He has remitted tax in respect of the property and has also constructed a building therein. Ext.P5 encumbrance certificate would reveal that prior to or after 11.2.2009 on which day, the petitioner had purchased the property, there was no liability or encumbrance attached to the same. From the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is apparent that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the previous owner only on 3.7.2013 much after the assignment of the property. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in refusing to issue a Record of Rights as requested by the petitioner. Furthermore, this WP(C).No.18679 OF 2020 4 Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala2 and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another3 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.
5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue the Record of Rights certificate in respect of property covered under Exhibit P1 on the petitioner 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. The 2nd respondent is directed to register the sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting for the production of RoR certificate.
6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru 2 [2013 (1) KLT 221] 3 [2020 (4) KHC 167] WP(C).No.18679 OF 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.397/2009 OF SRO KUNNAMKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 9/7/2019 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN ARTHATU VILLAGE OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 16/4/2019 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
24/01/2020, SUBMITTED BY THE FOR ISSUING
ROR CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 4.12.2020 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF
REGISTRATION, KERALA
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10258 OF
2020 DATED 11.11.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ROR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2021.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE