Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, PETITIONER: KOKILA AGED 31 YEARS D/O. SEKHAR, 401/(9/67), MELADY, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA-685 620. BY ADV. SMT.JISHY P.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 613. 2 THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 620. R BY SRI.HANILKUMAR, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the absolute owner in possession
of an extent of 2.54 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.24/6-28 of Marayoor Village covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.1373/2015 dated 27.07.2015 of Sub Registrar Office, Devikulam, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order of the 1 st respondent Sub Collector. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner as per law without insisting for permission from the 1 st respondent. The further relief sought for is a declaration that the 1 st respondent has no authority to issue Ext.P3 direction to obtain permission for the registration of land in Marayoor Village.
2. On 27.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
3. On 08.01.2021, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader was directed -3- to get instructions and file statement on behalf of the 1 st respondent and the matter was listed to 18.01.2021 along with connected cases.
4. On 18.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for
further consideration, taking note of the judgment dated 21.08.2020 in W.P.(C)No.16362 of 2020 and connected cases, this writ petition was disposed of. While correcting the draft judgment, this Court noticed that the concerned Registrar is the Sub Registrar, Devikulam and not the Sub Registrar, Marayoor, who is the 2nd respondent. Therefore, Registry was directed to list the matter as 'to be spoken to' on 27.01.2021.
5. On 27.01.2021, when the matter came up for consideration along with connected cases as 'to be spoken to', this Court passed the following order;
“On 18.01.2021, when these writ petitions came up for consideration, taking note of the judgment dated 21.08.2020 in W.P.(C)No.16362 of 2020 and connected cases, these writ petitions were disposed of.
2. While correcting the draft judgment, it was noticed
that the 2nd respondent is Sub Registrar, Marayoor. As per the averments in the writ petitions, in order to sell -4- the property, the petitioners approached the 2 nd respondent for registering sale deed through document writer. The 2nd respondent rejected registration and directed the petitioners to obtain NOC/prior permission from the 1st respondent Sub Collector. As the concerned Registrar is the Sub Registrar, Devikulam, the Registry was directed to list these writ petitions today as 'to be spoken to'.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no Sub Registry Office at Marayoor.
4. In such circumstances, the judgment dated
18.01.2021 disposing these writ petitions is recalled. As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list these writ petitions on 29.01.2021 for further consideration.” (underline supplied)
6. Thereafter, on 29.01.2021 and also on 16.02.2021, the writ petition was adjourned, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo to withdraw this writ petition, which reads thus;
“I am the counsel for the petitioner herein. The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to register the subject matter property of -5- the petitioner. Some inadvertent mistakes were happened, while drafting the above writ petition, and those mistakes are not wilful or deliberate. Hence the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach this Hon'ble court again. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above case with liberty to approach this Hon'ble court again.” Recording the above memo filed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving the aforesaid right of the petitioner. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/27/2