Joy C J and others v. District Collector, Wayanad & others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 16TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 14261 of 2015** |||**WP(C).No. 14261 of 2015**| |---|---|---| |**PETITIONER/S**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**JOY C J**| |||**AGED 64 YEARS**| |||**S/O.JOSEPH, CHEERAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, DHANUGALA,**| |||**VITHAJAPETT,KARNATAKA.**| |**2**||**P.MINI SEBASTIAN**| |||**W/O.SEBASTIAN, CHEERAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, DHANUGALA,**| |||**VITHAJAPETT,KARNATAKA.**| |**3**||**TOMY M.MATHEW**| |||**S/O.M.J.MATHEW, IRUTTY PO, KEEZHUR, PAZHANCHERY,**| |||**KANNUR.**| |**4**||**BIJU JOSEPH**| |||**S/O.M.J.MATHEW, IRUTTY PO, KEEZHUR, PAZHANCHERY,**| |||**KANNUR.**| |**5**||**DENNIS JOY**| |||**IRUTTY PO, KEEZHUR, PAZHANCHERY, KANNUR.**| |**6**||**K.MARY JAMES**| |||**W/O.JAMES, MELMURUNGODI, MANATHANA, IRUTTY, KANNUR.**| |**7**||**K.ALEXANDER JAMES**| |||**S/O.JAMES, MELMURUNGODI, MANATHANA, IRUTTY, KANNUR.**| |**8**||**DEEPTHI JOY**| |||**CHEERAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, DHANUGALA,**| |||**VITHAJAPETT,KARNATAKA.**| |**9**||**ROSAMMA JOY**| |||**CHEERAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, DHANUGALA,**| |||**VITHAJAPETT,KARNATAKA.**| |||**BY ADVS.**| |||**SRI.MOHAN C.MENON**| |||**SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH**| |||**SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WYNAD PIN-673 121.** - **2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006.** - **3 THE SUB COLLECTOR MANANTHAVADY, WYANAD-670 645.** - **4 PRASOBHITHAN AGED 69 YEARS** **S/O.C.K.BHASKARAN, NOW RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE VAYALANCHERRY, PALLITHAZHA, CHIRAKKARA PO., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 104.** - **5 B.CHANDRAN AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, SHIVAGIRI ESTATE, THIRUNELLY PO., THIRUNELLI VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK - 670 645. (R4 and R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.NOS.9892/15 AND 16108/15 ON 12.11.15)** **BY ADVS.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY FOR ADDL.R4, SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R5** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------W.P.(C)No.14261 of 2015 --------------------------Dated this the 08[th] day of October, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the impugned decision rendered by the 1[st] respondentDistrict Collector, Wayanad as per Ext.P8 proceedings dated 23.3.2015,whereby he in purported exercise of his powers under sub section (2) of Section 83A of the Registration Act, 1908, has recommended to the 2[nd] respondent-Inspector General of Registration to cancel nine sale deeds executed by additional respondent No.5 and his mother in favour of the petitioners, without any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.** **2. The prayers in this writ petition (civil)** ## **are as follows:-** _**“a) a writ, in the nature of certiorari and quash Exhibit-P8 order/letter of the 1[st] respondent dated 23.3.2015, after calling for records leading to it.**_ ## _**And**_ _**b) issue such other writs, orders or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”**_ W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 4 :- **3. Heard Sri.Mohan C.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri.P.I.George Kutty, learned counsel appearing for additional respondent No.4 and Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Shaji Joseph, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.** **4. The nine petitioners herein had jointly purchased a running coffee plantation from respondent No.5 and his mother, as per nine separate registered sale deeds bearing sale deed Nos.2057 to 2065 of 2006 dated 31.8.2006 registered with SRO, Mananthawady. The total extent of land covered by the said nine sale deeds comes to 245.90 acres, out of which 56.90 Acres was conveyed by respondent No.5 and the balance 189 acres was conveyed by the mother of respondent No.5 as per the above sale deeds. Later, the petitioners came to know that 110 Acres out of the 189 Acres** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 5 :- **conveyed by the mother of respondent No.5 had become vested with the State Government in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 on account of orders in that regard passed by the Forest Tribunal concerned in an Original Application. Further that against the said order of the Forest Tribunal in the said O.A., Miscellaneous First Appeal, M.F.A.No.33 of 2015 is pending on the file of this Court. So the petitioner would submit that they got actual possession of only 135.90 Acres (245.90 Acres - 110 Acres = 135.90 Acres), out of the above said 245.90 Acres covered by the said nine sale deeds. That the petitioners had got mutation of the said properties coming to an extent of 135.90 acres and have been paying basic tax as evident from Ext.P1 series. The basic tax in respect of the two, out of the said nine petitioners have been accepted by the competent Revenue officials concerned as per Ext.P-3 series after the rendering of Ext.P2 judgment dated** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 6 :- **29.9.2014 by this Court in W.P.(C)No.23998/ 2014. According to the petitioners, they were kept in the dark about the vesting of the properties under the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act by respondent No.5 and his mother, who are the executants of the above said sale deeds. Further that the petitioners had also made due enquiries as to whether any ceiling proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act were pending against the said properties and they could come to know that ceiling proceedings, which was initially initiated against the said properties was finally closed as per order dated 21.1.2003 of the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady, whereby further proceedings for taking excess land were thus dropped. Further on enquiry it was revealed by the petitioners that the said order dated 21.1.2003 of the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady had become final and that the State Authorities had not raised any challenge thereto, and it is only thereafter that the petitioners had secured execution of the land sale deeds on** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 7 :- ## **31.8.2006.** **5. Further it is stated that the 4[th] respondent, who does not claim any right or interest over the property had filed objections before the 1[st] respondent District Collector, and that too, behind the back of the petitioners, alleging that the said sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioners in violation of the provisions contained in Sec.84 and 120A of the KLR Act. Thereafter, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.15851 of 2012 alleging that no further action is being taken by the 1[st] respondent District Collector. The petitioners herein were not impleaded as respondents in W.P. (C)No.15851 of 2012, even though the specific contention of the petitioner therein (respondent No.4 herein), was that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners herein were in violation of the above said provisions of the KLR Act. This Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 14.11.2012 had finally disposed of W.P.(C)No.15851 of 2012 by** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 8 :- **holding that no separate directions are needed but only ordered that the pending action will be expedited with due notice to all the parties involved. This Court had also specifically taken note of the factual aspects in Ext.P4 judgment that C.R.P.No.2 of 2009 is pending before this Court to impugn the said order dated 21.1.2003 of the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady in T.L.B.No.839 of 1973. It is seen that C.R.P.No.2 of 2009 has been filed before this Court only on 15.12.2008 along with an application to condone the delay of 1789 days in filing the said C.R.P.** **6. Thereafter, the 4[th] respondent herein had again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No. 22787 of 2014 again reiterating the allegation that no effective action has been taken by the 1[st] respondent District Collector. In W.P.(C)No.22787 of 2014 also, the 4[th] respondent herein has not chosen to implead the petitioners herein as respondents in the said W.P.(C), even though the prayers sought for by him before the 1[st] respondent** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 9 :- **District Collector was on account of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the KLR Act in regard to the execution of the said nine sale deeds in favour of the petitioners herein. This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 1.11.2014 had finally disposed of W.P.(C)No.22787 of 2014 with a direction to the 1[st] respondent District Collector to expedite the proceedings and finalize the matter pursuant to the judgment dated 14.11.2012 in W.P. (C)No.15851 of 2012 (Ext.P4 herein), within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. By Ext.P6 letter dated 24.2.2015, the District Registrar (General), Wayanad has furnished his report to the District Collector stating that though initially a prohibitory order was issued by the Divisional Officer, Forest on 12.8.2005, the said officer had not communicated further clarification thereon despite reminders and that due to this that the Sub Registrar, Mananthavady had registered the nine sale deeds executed by respondent No.5 and his mother in favour of the** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 10 :- **petitioners. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent Sub Collector, Mananthavady has submitted Ext.P7 letter dated 02.03.2015 to the District Collector making certain adverse comments about the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners and also recommending disciplinary action against the then Sub Registrar, Mananthavady who had registered the nine sale deeds in question. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent District Collector had issued Ext.P8 proceedings dated 23.3.2015, in purported exercise of the powers conferred under sub section (2) of Sec.83A of the Registration Act, 1908 by recommending the 2[nd] respondent Inspector General of Registration that action should be taken for cancellation of the nine sale deeds in question executed by respondent No.5 and his mother in favour of the petitioners herein. It is at that juncture that the petitioners had filed the instant writ petition on 11.5.2015, in which this Court had granted stay order on 12.5.2015 for a period of one month, which has been extended until further orders** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 11 :- **on 17.8.2015. It is not in any way disputed by the respondents that petitioners were never made parties either in Exts.P4 and P5 writ proceedings but also the proceedings in Exts.P6, P7 and P8. The entire adverse proceedings, more particularly as per Exts.P7 and P8 have been rendered without any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. This is despite the clear information disclosed therein that nine sale deeds in question have been executed by respondent No.5 and his mother in favour of the nine petitioners herein. It is not understandable to this Court as to how the highest functionary in the District concerned, viz., 1[st] first respondent District Collector could issue a proceeding in the nature of Ext.P8 recommending to the 2[nd] respondent Inspector General of Registration that the nine sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners should be cancelled and that too, by taking such a view on the part of the 1[st] respondent without any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 12 :- **petitioners. Therefore on the sole ground of flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and fairness, the impugned Ext.P8 proceedings is liable to be interdicted.** **7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Sri.P.I.George Kutty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Shaji Joseph, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that Ext.P8 proceedings is not a final order and is only the first step in the statutory proceedings conceived in sub section (2) of Section 83A and that the petitioners will get a cause of action only if the 2[nd] respondent Inspector General of Registration passes an adverse order by cancelling the nine sale deeds, in exercise of the second step of such proceedings contained in sub section (3) of Section 83A and that until then, it is not right and proper for this Court to exercise the powers of judicial review in this case. This contention** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 13 :- **raised by the respondents will be dealt with in the latter portion of this judgment.** **8. Sri.Mohan.C.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that the only provision in the Registration Act is the one as per Section 83A for cancellation of a registered sale deed once the sale deed has already been registered.** **9. Before adverting to the provisions in Sec.83A, it will be pertinent to refer to the provisions contained in Sec.120A of the KLR Act, 1963, which reads as follows:** _**“Sec.120A: Registering officer not to register in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908), where the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf informs the registering officer in writing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any document relating to transfer of land which may be presented before him for registration is intended to defeat the provisions of this Act, such registering officer shall not register such document until the District Collector or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, informs the registering officer that the transfer is not intended to defeat the provisions of this Act.”**_ ## **10. It is common ground that the only** **statutory provision contained in the Registration** **Act, 1908, enabling cancellation of the sale deed** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 14 :- **once it has been registered, is the one contained in Sec.83A, which was engrafted as per Amendment Act 13 of 2013, with effect from 13.9.2013. Sec.83A** ## **of the Registration Act, provides as follows:** _**“Sec.83A: Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases.- (1) If on enquiry by an officer in the Registration Department not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, it is found that some one has falsely personated another, and in such assumed character presented, admitted the execution and got registered any document by a registering officer and the existence of such a document is detrimental to the interest of another person, the same shall be cancelled by the Inspector General of Registration on application made to him in such form as may be prescribed.**_ _**(2) If on an enquiry conducted by the District Collector suo motu or on the basis of a complaint received by him, it is found that any Government land or land owned by a public sector undertaking, has been transferred on the strength of a document which is got registered without following the procedure prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 71, the District Collector may make recommendation to the Inspector General of Registration to cancel the registration of such document.**_ _**(3) On receipt of such recommendation from the District Collector, the Inspector General of Registration shall have the authority to cancel the registration of such document after following such procedure as may be prescribed.”**_ ## **11. This case is not concerned with Sec.** **83A(1), as it does not involve any allegation of false personation. Sub section (2) of Sec.83A also mentions about the procedure prescribed in Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act. Sub section (3) of Sec.71 of the Registration Act has been inserted** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 15 :- **by the very same Amendment Act 31 of 2013 w.e.f. 13.9.2013 and sub section (3) of Sec.71 of the Registration Act, provides as follows:** _**“Sec.71: Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.-** (1)....._ _**(2) .......**_ _**(3) No registering officer shall accept for registration any document involving transfer of property including contract for sale of immovable property belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala or public sector undertakings operating in the State or local self Government institutions unless it is accompanied by a no objection certificate issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf.”**_ **12. It is common ground that provisions** **contained in sub section (1) of Sec.83A are not applicable in the cases as in the instant one and at best, the respondents may endeavour to press into service the provisions contained in sub sections (2) & (3) of Sec.83A. In that regard, Sri.Mohan C.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would seriously urge that the provisions contained in Sec.83A including sub sections (2) and (3) thereof and the provisions contained in sub section (3) of Sec.71 of the Registration Act have been brought into force** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 16 :- **statutorily only prospectively w.e.f. 13.9.2013 as per Act 13 of 2013 and that at best, the powers under sub sections (2)and (3) could be invoked to cancel deeds, which are duly registered on or after coming into force of the provisions contained in Sec.83A and sub section (3) of Sec.71 (w.e.f. 13.9.2013) and that too, after following the procedure prescribed in Sec.71(3). That in the instant case, it is indisputable that the 9 impugned sale deeds in question have been executed on 31.8.2006, which is long prior to the coming into force of Sec.83A and Sec.71(3) and that therefore it is contended that the powers available under sub sections (2) and (3) of Sec.83A and sub section (3) of Sec.71 cannot be invoked in the present case and that 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents have absolutely no jurisdiction in this case to cancel the 9 sale deeds executed and registered on 31.8.2006. Further it is pointed out by the petitioners' counsel that action in that regard could be taken only if a document is registered** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 17 :- **without following the procedure prescribed in Sec. 71(3). Sec.71(3) made effective from 13.9.2013, provided that no registering officer shall accept for registration any document involving transfer of property including contract for sale of immovable property belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala or public sector undertakings operating in the State or local self Government institutions unless it is accompanied by a no objection certificate issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf. That in the instant case, the Taluk Land Board proceedings in TLB No.839/1973 was finally closed as per the order dated 21.1.2003 of the Taluk Land Board, Mananthavady, dropping all further ceiling proceedings. Further it is seen from the records that C.R.P.No.2/2009 was filed before this Court only on 14.12.2008 along with an application to condone the delay of 1789 days in filing the C.R.P., which is even now pending before this Court. Hence, it is contended by the petitioners** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 18 :- **that as on the date of execution and registration of the 9 sale deeds (viz.31.8.2006), it cannot be said that the lands in question were legally vested with the State in terms of the provisions contained in the KLR Act, since as on the said day (31.8.2006) the Taluk Land Board proceedings were closed dropping further ceiling proceedings and no civil revision proceedings was even pending as on** **that day. Hence it is pointed out by the petitioners that it was legally impossible to contend that the said lands had got vested with the State as on that day and so there is no question of seeking any NOC for that land as per Sec.71(3) before the registration of the 9 sale deeds on 31.8.2006. Therefore, it is pointed out that in any view of the matter the powers under Sec.83A(2) could not have been legally exercised by the 1[st] respondent District Collector in respect of the execution and registration of the deeds on 31.8.2006.** **13. In this regard, it is pointed out that it** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 19 :- **has been consistently held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in decisions as in** _**Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.**_ **reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, para 40, that once a document is registered in terms of the provisions contained in the Registration Act, then it is not open to the registering officials to cancel that registration even if attention is invited to some of the irregularities committed during the registration of that document and the remedy of such an aggrieved party is to challenge the registration and its validity of the document before the competent civil court concerned. That Sec. 83A of the Registration Act made effective prospectively from 13.9.2013 is an exception to the abovesaid common law position. Therefore, it is urged that for deeds executed and registered prior to 13.9.2013, the beneficiaries of such transactions have secured substantial vested and accrued rights based on such registered documents and that such vested and substantive rights accrued prior to 13.9.2013, cannot be taken** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 20 :- **away by the prospective amendment made in Sec.83A of the Act w.e.f. 13.9.2013. Further that the power conferred in Sec.83A is not merely a procedural one, but a substantive one and that therefore such substantive powers conferred for the first time to the registration officials w.e.f. 13.9.2013 cannot take away or abridge substantive rights accrued to the parties on the basis of the documents registered prior to 13.9.2013 and that in the case of such documents, as in the instant one, executed prior to 13.9.2013, the remedy of the aggrieved persons is to challenge the registration and the validity of the document before the competent civil court, etc.** **14. At the outset this Court is inclined to deal with the contentions raised by the respondents based on Sec.120A of the KLR Act, 1964. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Sec.120A of the KLR Act would disclose that the said special power conceived in Sec.120 of the KLR Act could be exercised only before the registration of the** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 21 :- **document/deed concerned and it is common ground that a prohibitory order as conceived in Sec.120A of the KLR Act was not issued and intimated by the authorised officer of the Government to the registering officer concerned prior to the registration of the 9 sale deeds in question on 31.8.2006. Therefore, the provisions contained in Sec.120A of the KLR Act cannot be of any avail in the facts and circumstances of this case.** **15. As regards the contentions raised by the petitioners based on sub sections (2) and (3) Sec. 83A and sub section (3) of Sec.71 of the Registration Act, 1908, this Court is of the view that the 1[st] respondent District Collector has not considered any of those vital aspects, presumably because the petitioners were never given an reasonable opportunity of being heard by the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter should be remitted to the 1[st] respondent District Collector to consider the said serious and vital contentions raised by the** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 22 :- **petitioners based on sub sections (2) and (3) of Sec.83A and sub section (3) of Sec.71 of the Registration Act, 1908, in regard to the contention that respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction under those provisions in the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as the provision has been made only prospectively from 13.9.2013 and that it cannot be pressed into service for sale deeds duly executed and registered long prior to that date, etc.** **16. As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have no cause of action as of now, to challenge Ext.P-8 order rendered by the 1[st] respondent District Collector, this Court is of the view that the said contention is untenable for reasons for more than one. Firstly, Ext.P-8 proceedings have been issued in purported exercise of the powers of the 1[st] respondent District Collector as per sub section (2) of Sec.83A of the Registration Act, 1908. By going through the statutory scheme enshrined in sub** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 23 :- **sections (2) and (3) of Sec.83A it can be seen that the decision of the District Collector in making recommendation to the I.G. of Registration is the first step of the matter as conceived in sub section (2) of Sec. 83A. Further the second step in the exercise of powers in that regard, is to be rendered by the I.G. Of Registration in terms of sub section (3) of Sec. 83A.** **17. Moreover, the 1[st] respondent District Collector has issued the impugned Ext.P-8 proceedings purportedly under Sec.83A(2), in flagrant and total violation of the elementary principles of natural justice and fairness, inasmuch as the petitioners were never heard in the matter, even though the very directions therein were to get the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners cancelled, which involves serious adverse civil consequences on the petitioners. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have no cause of** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 24 :- **action as of now, inasmuch as the 2[nd] respondent I.G. of Registration has not exercised his powers under Sec.83A(3), etc. is bereft of any merit in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, the impugned decision of the 1[st] respondent District Collector at Ext.P-8 proceedings dated 23.3.2015 to the extent he purportedly exercised the powers under sub section (2) of Sec.83A in making recommendation to the 2[nd] respondent I.G. of Registration for cancellation of the 9 sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, will stand quashed, as it has been rendered in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. It is also so ordered as the vital contentions raised by the petitioners regarding lack of jurisdiction have not been even remotely considered and decided by the 1[st] respondent District Collector before rendering the decision as per Ext.P-8. Accordingly, the matter will stand remitted to the 1[st] respondent District Collector for consideration afresh on the vital issue whether he has** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 25 :- **jurisdiction under Sec.83A(2) in the facts of this case and after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.** **18. The petitioners may submit their joint written submission in the matter dealing with not only the factual aspects, but also the legal contentions as aforestated that the 1[st] respondent lacks total jurisdiction to take recourse to the special powers conferred under sub section (2) of Sec.83A inasmuch as the said powers can be pressed into service only as against the deeds registered on or after 13.9.2013 and as the said provision is made only prospective from that day and that it cannot be pressed into service as against sale deeds as in the instant case, which have been executed long prior to 13.9.2013, etc. Written submission may be filed by the petitioners within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy** **of this judgment and the said joint written submission shall be submitted along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 1[st]** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 26 :- **respondent District Collector. So also, the contention of the petitioners that, in the instant case Sec.71(3) will not apply, as it cannot be said that the land got vested with the Government as on 31.8.2006, as the Taluk Land Board proceedings was closed dropping all further ceiling proceedings as early as on 21.1.2003, etc. should also be duly adverted to and considered by the 1[st] respondent.** **19. This Court is of the considered view that the said contentions of the petitioners are very serious and substantial in nature and would deserve serious consideration and therefore it will be only in the fairness of things that the 1[st] respondent should secure legal opinion from the Advocate General on the abovesaid aspects before he renders a decision on the matter, especially on the abovesaid legal contentions now posed by the petitioners based on sub sections (2) and (3) of Sec.83A and sub section (3) of Sec. 71 of the** **Registration Act, 1908.** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 27 :- **20. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent District Collector will grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, and will render considered decision on the specific contention raised by the petitioners regarding lack of jurisdiction based on the prospectivity of Sec. 83A and Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act, 1908. The decision on the abovesaid aspect of jurisdiction should be rendered by the 1[st] respondent District Collector, without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The decision so rendered by the 1[st] respondent District Collector should be forthwith communicated to the petitioners by registered speed post with acknowledgment due. The question of the 1[st] respondent proceeding on the merits of the matter will arise only if it is held that he has jurisdiction under Sec. 83A(2) in the facts and circumstances of this case.** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 28 :- **The office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this judgment to respondents 1 to 3 for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, above the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.** **Sd/-** **sdk+ skj ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** W.P.(C).14261/15 - : 29 :- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **P1 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX FOR THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES OF PETITIONERS 1 TO 7.** **EXHIBIT P2 P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.23998/2014 DATED 29-9-2014.** **EXHIBIT P3** **P3 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES OF PETITIONERS 8 & 9.** **EXHIBIT P4 P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-11-2012 IN WPC.NO.15851/2012** - **EXHIBIT P5** - **P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1- 11-2014/ IN WPC.NO.22787/2014** - **EXHIBIT P6 P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 242-2015 SENT BY DISTRICT REGISTRAR, WYNAD TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7 P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2-32015 SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-3-2015.** - **EXHIBIT P8** - RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANX R4 (A) ANX R4 (A) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.128/2008 BEFORE SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY DTD.15.6.2008. ANX R5 (A) COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.13.9.2017.