P.C.Jacob vs The Village Officer on 4 January, 2019
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.