Selvam Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- a.k. basheer, j.1. are the revenue officials legally competent or entitled to interdict a registering authority under the registration act 1908 from registering a sale deed on the ground that the subject matter of the document is suspected to be a revenue puramboke land?2. can the revenue officials direct the registering authority to register the document only on production of a no objection certificate from the revenue officials?3. these two questions came up for consideration before a learned single judge of this court in the writ petition filed by the appellants. the learned single judge disposed of the writ petition directing the district collector, idukki district to take a decision on the request made by appellant no. 1 for issue of a no objection certificate. the learned judge directed that such a certificate be issued to appellant no. 1 if there are no 'inhibiting factors'. the above order is under challenge in this appeal.4. appellant no. 1 is stated to be the owner in possession of 1 acre 40 cents of land in sy. no. 1/1 of chinnakkanal village of idukki district. according to the appellant, his father late marimuthu, obtained the said property on the strength of ext.pl patta dated may 25, 197l issued by special tahsildar (la. no. ii) nedumkandom of idukki district. after the death of marimuthu. appellant no. 1 became the exclusive owner of the property when the other legal heirs executed a registered sale deed in his favour (document no. 786/85 of rajakumari sub registry office). appellant no. 1 contended that mutation in respect of the property was effected in his name and he had been paying land tax. ext.p2 is stated to be photocopy of the tax receipt. village officer, chinnakkanal had issued ext.p3 possession certificate in the name of appellant no. 1 in august 2004.5. appellant contended that he had executed ext.p4 sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of appellants 2 and 3 and presented the same for registration before the sub registrar, rajakumari. however the sub registrar by ext.p5 communication dated march 31, 2009 informed that registration can be effected only after getting clarification from the revenue officials in the light of the communication received from the sub collector, devikulam informing that registration of documents relating to properties in chinnakkanal village can be entertained only on production of 'no objection certificate' from the authorities concerned.6. on receipt of the said communication appellant no. 1 submitted ext.p6 application before the tahsildar, udumbanchola taluk requesting him to issue no objection certificate to enable him to get the document registered in favour of appellants 2 and 3. but there was no response from the authorities.7. appellants preferred the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that no objection certificate from revenue authorities is not necessary for registering ext.p4 sale deed.8. as mentioned earlier, the learned single judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the district collector to take a decision on ext.p6 application for grant of no objection certificate to appellant no. 1, if there is no impediment.9. it is vehemently contended by sri. alexander joseph, learned counsel for the appellants that the embargo placed by the revenue authorities on the registering authority is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and vitiated. he contends that the above procedure adopted by the revenue authorities is unheard of and totally without any authority of law. department of revenue has no jurisdiction or sanction of law to interfere with the powers and authority vested with the registrar or sub registrar, as the case may be, in the matter of registration of a document as provided under the registration act 1908.10. learned counsel has invited our attention to the relevant provisions under the act and the rules framed thereunder. while referring to rule 67 of the registration rules (kerala) framed by the government in exercise of the power vested in it under section 69(1) of the act, it is contended by the learned counsel that a registering officer is not duty bound to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration. rule 67 reads thus:67. it forms no part of a registering officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds dated below:(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;(b) that the document is forged;(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity;(d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; or(e) that the executing party is minor or an idiot or a lunatic.the provisions contained in the above rule enumerate the circumstances or grounds on which the registering officer can consider the objection, if any, that may be raised by an objector to admit a document for registration. a registering officer cannot and need not enquire into the validity of a document brought before him for registration. it is contended by the learned counsel that the revenue officers-are not justified in insisting for production of a no objection certificate to be issued by them before admitting the document for registration.11. however sri. ranjit thampan, learned addl. advocate general submits that the registering officers in the district had been given instruction not to admit any document for registration unless it is accompanied by a no objection certificate, since the government had detected that large areas of government land in devikulam and udumbanchola taluks, especially in chinnakkanal and munnar area have been illegally encroached upon by private persons by forging title deeds and on the strength of fabricated pattas and other documents as though they were genuine. learned addl. advocate general further contends that the revenue officials have been authorised by the government to issue the above directive to the registering officers till the full fledged enquiry instituted by the government in the matter of bogus pattas is completed. he has made available a copy of the proceedings of the district collector, idukki in which the officer has held that the subject matter of the sale deed allegedly executed by appellant no. 1 in favour of appellant nos. 2 and 3 is also suspected to be a land which does not have a valid title. a copy of the said proceedings is on record as annexure r1. it reveals that the district collector has passed the above order on ext.p6 application submitted by appellant no. 1 as directed in the impugned judgment.12. annexure r1 order of the district collector refers to some circumstances which may indicate that the land which is sought to be sold by appellant no. 1 to appellant nos. 2 and 3 is in fact under a cloud. anyhow, we do not propose to refer to or deal with the various circumstances indicated by the district collector about the validity of the title of appellant no. 1 over the said land for obvious reasons. in our view, appellant no. 1 should be given liberty to challenge the above order before appropriate forum in accordance with law. we do so.13. but so far as the larger question involved in this appeal pertaining to the competence of the revenue authorities to issue a direction to the registering officers not to register a document in the absence of no objection certificate is concerned, it has to be held that the powers sought to be exercised by the revenue officials is prima facie arbitrary, illegal and without any sanction of law. learned addl. advocate general fairly conceded before us that going by the provisions contained in the registration act and the rules framed thereunder, such an embargo or interdiction cannot be placed by the revenue officials on the registering officers. but according to the learned addl. advocate general, such an unusual step was necessitated in view of the prevailing circumstances in udumbanchola and devikulam taluks and particularly in chinnakkanal village and munnar area.14. it may be true that large number of bogus pattas are in circulation in that area. complicity of some of the officials in the department is also not ruled out by the government. but so long as the provisions contained in the registration act do not give any power or authority to the revenue officials to meddle with the power vested with the registering authority under the act, the action of the respondents-revenue officials cannot be countenanced or justified.15. in this context it may be noticed that appellants nos. 2 and 3 have shown their preparedness to purchase the property in question at their own risk. they seem to be confident enough about the title of appellant no. 1 over the property in question. they are prepared to spend money on the stamp paper and get the document registered in their name. if appellant no. 1 does not have any valid title over the property in question, he can not obviously pass on any title to appellants 2 and 3. in other words, if appellant no. 1 has a defective title over the property he can only pass such a defective title to his assignees. they cannot get a better right or title over the property just because a document has been registered under the act. in the absence of any provision which allows the revenue officials to interdict the registering officer from admitting a document for registration, and to insist that registration can be effected only on production of no objection certificate, we have no hesitation to hold that the questions posed above have to be answered in the negative. we do so.however we make it clear that the revenue officials will be at liberty to proceed against the property which is now sought to be transferred by appellant no. 1 in favour of appellants 2 and 3, if it is found that the said land belongs to the government or that the patta allegedly obtained by appellant no. 1 in respect of the said property is bogus. with that liberty reserved in favour of the revenue officials the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the registering authority to register ext.p4 sale deed if it is presented for registration, without insisting for no objection certificate from the revenue officials.