Mary Augustine Vs. the Sub Registrar

Mary Augustine vs The Sub Registrar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 04, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1094417

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1094417
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Decided On: Oct 04, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mary Augustine

Respondent

The Sub Registrar

Excerpt

.....out that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for raising the objection with reference to the nature of the land and that none of the provisions of the registration act or the relevant rules does enable the 1st respondent, who has raised the objection in the nature of ext.p2. the factual position is also far from the understanding of the 1st respondent, in so far as the physical nature of the property as on date reveals that it is a reclaimed land, having effected the reclamation years back. even at the time of conveyance effected in the name of the petitioner vide ext.p3, the property was remaining as a reclaimed land, as clearly shown in ext.p3 sale deed dated 29.05.2006. absolutely no variation has been sought to be effected by the petitioner in ext.p1 than the nature of the land, as described in ext.p3.5. after hearing both the sides, this court finds that the nature of the land can never be the look out of the registering authority, who is to effect the registration, in accordance with the w.p.c.no.23586 of20133 relevant provisions of the registration act/rules; subject to satisfaction of the stamp duty and registration charges in conformity with the fair value, if at all any fixed in respect of the property in the area. that apart, this court finds that the nature of the property has been clearly shown as 'reclaimed land' in ext.p3 assignment deed and as such, there is no basis for the objection raised in ext.p2, which hence is set aside.6. the first respondent is directed to effect the registration of ext.p1, as and when the original of ext.p1 is tendered, satisfying the other requirements in accordance with the registration act/rules, effecting payment of the stamp duty and registration charges as prescribed. the writ petition stands allowed. no costs. the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent, for further steps. p.r. ramachandra menon, judge sp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY,THE4H DAY OF OCTOBER201312TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C). No. 23586 of 2013 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MARY AUGUSTINE, W/O. AUGUSTINE, AGED47YEARS MANAVALAN VEETTIL, NAYARAMBALAM P.O. NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 509 BY ADVS. SRI. V.T. MADHAVANUNNI SRI. V.A. SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MEENACHIL, MEENACHIL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 651.

2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSMT. K.T LILLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0410-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23586 of 2013 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ----------------------------------- EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SABEENA WILSON DATED1708-2013 EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE OBJECTION SLIP DATED1708-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT NO.1 EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED2905-2006 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLICHIRA DATED1104-2013 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL ------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE sp P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.23586 OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2013. JUDGMENT

Refusal on the part of the 1st respondent in causing the original of Ext.P1 Settlement Deed to be registered, referring to the objection raised in Ext.P2, with reference to the nature of the land sought to be conveyed, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner came to be the owner of 17 Are and 81 Square Meters (41.5 cents) of property in Vellichira Village, Valavur Kara in Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District, by virtue of Ext.P3 Assignment Deed dated 29.05.2006. When the petitioner sought to assign the land as per Ext.P1 Settlement Deed executed in the name of her sister and when the original of Ext.P1 was taken for registration before the 1st respondent, it was objected to be registered and the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 objection slip dated 17.08.2013 stating that, as per the Village records and the Possession Certificate issued, the property was shown as 'nilam', whereas the document sought to be W.P.C.No.23586 OF20132 registered reflected the nature of the land as 'reclaimed land'. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for raising the objection with reference to the nature of the land and that none of the provisions of the Registration Act or the relevant Rules does enable the 1st respondent, who has raised the objection in the nature of Ext.P2. The factual position is also far from the understanding of the 1st respondent, in so far as the physical nature of the property as on date reveals that it is a reclaimed land, having effected the reclamation years back. Even at the time of conveyance effected in the name of the petitioner vide Ext.P3, the property was remaining as a reclaimed land, as clearly shown in Ext.P3 Sale Deed dated 29.05.2006. Absolutely no variation has been sought to be effected by the petitioner in Ext.P1 than the nature of the land, as described in Ext.P3.

5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the nature of the land can never be the look out of the registering authority, who is to effect the registration, in accordance with the W.P.C.No.23586 OF20133 relevant provisions of the Registration Act/Rules; subject to satisfaction of the stamp duty and registration charges in conformity with the fair value, if at all any fixed in respect of the property in the area. That apart, this Court finds that the nature of the property has been clearly shown as 'reclaimed land' in Ext.P3 Assignment Deed and as such, there is no basis for the objection raised in Ext.P2, which hence is set aside.

6. The first respondent is directed to effect the registration of Ext.P1, as and when the original of Ext.P1 is tendered, satisfying the other requirements in accordance with the Registration Act/Rules, effecting payment of the stamp duty and registration charges as prescribed. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent, for further steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Mary Augustine vs The Sub Registrar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon