Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed.

C.K. Nafeesa and others v. The District Collector, Wayanad and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18148 of 2012 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
Judgment Date
2014-08-19
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P3 is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to collect tax and issue possession certificates to the petitioners in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The 4th respondent is directed to register the sale deeds pertaining to the land covered by Exts.P1 and P2, upon presentation by the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • C.K. Nafeesa
  • C.K. Sainaba
  • C.K. Subaida
  • C.K. Rabiya
  • C.K. Ramla
  • C.K. Moideen Koya
  • Safiya
  • Mohammed Abdurahiman
  • Naseera
  • Shahurban
  • Fathima
  • Muhammedkoya
  • Muhammed Najeeb
  • Nusaiba
  • Muhammed Anwar
  • Ayammadkutty Haji
  • Kunhali Haji
  • Abubacker
  • Abdul Razak
  • Rukhiya
  • Mohammed Sadiqu
  • Rafiya

Respondents

  • The District Collector, Wayanad
  • The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Vythiri, Wayanad District
  • The Village Officer, Kunnathidavaka Village, Vythiri, Wayanad District
  • The Sub Registrar, Vythiri, Wayanand District
  • The Chief Conservator of Forests (Addl. Respondent 5)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Jacob Sebastian
  • • Sri P.V. Elias

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, a large group of landowners residing in Kunnathidavaka village in Wayanad, approach the Kerala High Court (WP(C) No. 18148 of 2012) challenging Ext.P3, a notice by the third respondent directing the fourth respondent (the registering authority) not to register a sale deed relating to land covered by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is a 2007 Munsiff Kalpetta decree in O.S. 256/2004, which declared the petitioners’ title and injuncted interference by the State and its officers. The respondent State contends that Ext.P1’s judgment has not become final (being subject to appeal and delay-condonation proceedings) and invokes Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 to argue lack of jurisdiction in this writ petition. The petitioners rely on Ext.P1 to claim title and seek registration, arguing that the revenue department cannot obstruct registration. In a cited precedent, Selvam M. v. State of Kerala and others, the court notes that Sections 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 67 of the Kerala Registration Rules do not permit revenue officials to condition or prevent registration without a No Objection Certificate. Ultimately, the court quashes Ext.P3, directs the 3rd respondent to collect tax and issue possession certificates, and orders the 4th respondent to register the sale deed in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2, effectively allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908Rule 67 of Registration Rules (Kerala)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Revenue officials have no power to interfere in the registration process when a document is presented for registration.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners claim title to the property under Ext.P1, a 2007 Munsiff’s decree (O.S.256/2004) declaring their title and restraining State interference. They challenge Ext.P3, a notice by the 3rd respondent, directing the 4th respondent not to register any sale deeds. They urge that the revenue authorities cannot derail registration by citing Ext.P3 and the absence of aNo Objection Certificate, relying on Selvam M. v. State of Kerala and others to insist that registration cannot be obstructed by revenue officials when a document is presented for registration.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext.P1’s judgment may have been challenged on appeal and delay condensations were not resolved; they argue that Section 20A bars the court’s jurisdiction in such petitions and that registration could be appropriately controlled through the authorities. They rely on the communications and Ext.P3 to justify withholding registration.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Selvam M. and others v. State of Kerala and others2010 (1) KLT 508PositiveThe court relied on this decision (Sections 17 of the Registration Act and Rule 67 of the Kerala Registration Rules) to hold that revenue officials cannot direct the registering authority to register documents solely on production of a No Objection Certificate.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C.K. Nafeesa and others v. The District Collector, Wayanad and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/28TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 18148 of 2012 (P)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **1. C.K.NAFEESA,D/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI, REISIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **2. C.K.SAINABA,D/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI REISIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **3. C.K.SUBAIDA,D/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI REISIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **4. C.K.RABIYA,D/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI REISIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **5. C.K.RAMLA,D/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI REISIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **6. C.K.MOIDEEN KOYA,D/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH ATHRUMANKUTTY HAJI,REISIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **7. SAFIYA,D/O.K.M.AHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **8. MOHAMMED ABDURAHIMAN,S/O.K.M.AHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **9. NASEERA,D/O.K.M.AHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **10. SHAHARBAN,D/O.K.M.AHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **11. FATHIMA,W/O.KOLASSERI MOOTHEDATH MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **12. MUHAMMEDKOYA,S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM MANGAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **PTO** **WP(C).No. 18148 of 2012 (P)** **...2...** ## **--------------------------------------** **13. MUHAMMED NAJEEB,S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM MANGAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT..** **14. NUSAIBA,D/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM MANGAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT..** **15. MUHAMMED ANWAR,S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT IYVAD AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **16. AYAMMADKUTTY HAJI,S/O.KALLUVETTUKUZHI MALIYAKKAL CHEKKU HAJI,RESIDING AT ELETTIL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **17. KUNHALI HAJI,S/O.KALLUVETTUKUZHI MALIYAKKAL CHEKKU HAJI RESIDING AT ELETTIL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **18. ABUBACKER,S/O.KALLUVETTUKUZHI MALIYAKKAL CHEKKU HAJI, RESIDING AT ELETTIL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **19. ABDUL RAZAK,S/O.KALLUVETTUKUZHI MALIYAKKAL CHEKKU HAJI, RESIDING AT ELETTIL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **20. RUKHIYA,W/O.LATE PUTHUKKUDI MOIDEEN KUTTY, MOOTHEDATHU VEEDU,MANGADU DESOM, EYAD AMSOM, KOYILANDI TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **21. MOHAMMED SADIQU,S/O.LATE PUTHUKKUDI MOIDEEN KUTTY, MOOTHEDATHU VEEDU,MANGADU DESOM, EYAD AMSOM, KOYILANDI TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **22. RABIYA,W/O.ABDUL BASHEER, PUTHALATHU VEEDU, UNNIKULAM AMSOM DESOM, UNNIKULAM P.O., KOZHIKODE.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN** **RESPONDENTS:** - **-------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLECTOR,WAYANAD,PIN-673001.** **2. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PIN-673576.** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT,PIN-673576.** **4. THE SUB REGISTRAR,VYTHIRI, WAYANAND DISTRICT,PIN-673576.** **PTO** **...3...** ## **WP(C).No. 18148 of 2012 (P)** **--------------------------------------** ## **Addl.5.SUE MOTO IMPLEADED** **ADDL.R5:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, TRIVANDRUM.** ## **ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTO AS PER ORDER DATED 07/11/2012 IN WP(C).** **BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIAS.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **pk** ## **WP(C).No. 18148 of 2012 (P)** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.9.2007 IN O.S.NO.256/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF KALPETTA.** **EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 16.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **pk** ## **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.18148 of 2012 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19[th] day of August, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** Ext.P3 notice issued by the 3[rd] respondent by which he had directed the 4[th] respondent not to register any sale deed in respect of the property belonging to the petitioners covered by Ext.P1 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners allege that they are owners in possession of of a land comprised in Re. Sy. No.141/2 of Kunnathidavaka village. The title over the said property was challenged by the 3[rd] respondent. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, filed O.S No.256/2004 before the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta, which was decreed as per Ext.P1 judgment declaring that the title to the property vests with the petitioners, and injuncted the State and its officers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioners. WP(C).18148/12 ## **-:2:-** 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 4[th] respondent, who is the registering authority, is refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the property relying on Ext.P3 communication by the 3[rd] respondent. It is with this background that the petitioners have come up before this Court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they would contend that the petitioners were never in possession of the property in O.S No.256/2004 which was decreed as per Ext.P1 judgment. They would further contend that Ext.P1 judgment was subjected to an appeal along with a petition to condone the delay. The stand taken by the respondent is that Ext.P1 judgment was passed ignoring Section 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 which bars the jurisdiction of this Court in deciding such petitions. 5. Arguments have been heard. 6. The petitioners claim title to the property on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment passed by the civil court. The stand taken by the WP(C).18148/12 ## **-:3:-** respondents is that they have filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery. The learned counsel for the petitioners made available to me, a copy of the order in Interlocutory Application No.1351/2010 filed by the respondent State to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The said application was dismissed for default for non payment of batta. Therefore, evidently the decision in Ext.P1 judgment has become final. Now, the registering authority, who is the 4[th] respondent has refused to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioners for registration on the strength of Ext.P3 letter issued by the 3[rd] respondent. 7. This Court in **Selvam M. and others** v. **State of Kerala and others** [2010 (1) KLT 508] relying on Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 67 of Registration Rules (Kerala) considered the question whether the revenue officials could direct the registering authority to register the document only on production of a 'No Objection Certificate' from the revenue officials. It was observed WP(C).18148/12 ## **-:4:-** that no power is conferred on the revenue officials to interfere in the registration process when a document is presented for registration. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to collect tax and issue possession certificate to the petitioners in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The 4[th] respondent is directed to register the sale deed with respect to the land covered by Exts.P1 and P2, to be presented by the petitioners. Sd/- **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE** krj /True Copy/ P.A to Judge