High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-18Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set asid...

Prabhakaran Pillai V.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 8953 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The impugned proceedings (Exts. P22–P25) are set aside. The Village Officer is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ applications for ROR certificates, giving due regard to the precedents cited (Devasia R.V. v. Sub Registrar and Saleem and others v. State of Kerala), and to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The reconsideration must be completed expeditiously, not later than six weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment. Upon the Village Officer issuing the ROR certificate, the petitioners may produce the same, along with the documents intended for registration, before the 6th respondent (Sub Registrar), who shall take necessary action and register the documents, either manually or by any other available method, notwithstanding the ongoing digitisation process, but with liberty to the competent Authority to complete the digitisation process, and subject to any alterations or modifications that may subsequently arise in the Revenue Records, to which the petitioners will be bound through available remedies.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; directions issued for reconsideration of ROR applications by the Village Officer within six weeks; upon ROR issuance, registration to proceed before the Sub Registrar, including manual registration if required; digitisation to proceed without depriving citizens’ rights; entries may be revised as per digitisation with remedies available.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prabhakaran Pillai V.V.
Rajan G.
Jones John

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Peerumedu, Idukki District
Village Officer, Vagamon, Idukki District
Inspector General of Registration, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram
District Registrar General, District Registrar's Office, Idukki, Thodupuzha P.O.
Sub Registrar, Peerumedu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.P. Madhavankutty
• Shri. Shijo John Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. M. Anima, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 8953 of 2020 challenge Exts. P22 to P25, i.e., orders of the Village Officer, Vagamon, denying a Record of Rights (ROR) certificate for their properties on the ground that the properties enjoy exemption under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act). Their counsel contends that binding precedents of this Court—Devasia R.V. v. Sub Registrar, Idukki, and Saleem and another v. State of Kerala—squarely hold that a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department is not required to register a document where ownership remains unimpeached, and that exemption under the KLR Act does not bar registration; if exemption applies, the purchaser must nonetheless comply with plantation obligations as per the Act. The government pleader counters that digitisation of records is ongoing and will take time (six months), creating a practical impediment to registration; she cites Ext. P13 and the digitisation process to justify delaying registration. The court, after evaluating submissions, holds that merely because digitisation is underway cannot impede eligible rights; it sets aside the impugned orders and directs the Village Officer to reconsider the ROR applications with reference to the cited precedents, affording hearing, within six weeks. Once the Village Officer issues the ROR, the petitioners may present to the Sub Registrar for registration, which shall be effected manually or by other available means, notwithstanding digitization, but subject to the ongoing process and any necessary alterations to revenue entries.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the impugned Exts. P22–P25 are legally unsustainable since binding Court precedents have held that no No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department is required for registration of documents where ownership is unimpeached, and that the KLR Act exemptions do not bar registration; if exempted, purchasers must still fulfill plantation obligations. They seek either a direction to the Village Officer to issue an ROR certificate or to the Sub Registrar to register without such certificate. They contend digitisation should not foreclose their rights, and urge expeditious reconsideration in light of established jurisprudence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that registration cannot proceed due to ongoing digitisation and administrative impediments, and that there are legal grounds to withhold ROR; they rely on the digitisation process as a constraint and argue that the KLR Act exemptions may affect registration, meriting a cautious approach. They also rely on Ext. P13 certificate to justify the delay.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Devasia R.V. and another v. Sub Registrar, Idukki, and others	2015 (1) KHC 805	Positive	Cited as binding authority establishing that a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department is not required to register a document with unimpeached ownership; supports petitioners’ position.
Saleem and another v. State of Kerala and others	2012 KHC 2778	Positive	Affirmed that registration can proceed without a separate No Objection Certificate and clarified aspects of KLR Act exemptions; cited to reinforce the petitioners’ argument.

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 Prabhakaran Pillai V.V. and others v. State of Kerala 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 PRABHAKARAN PILLAI V.V. AGED 70 YEARS S/O.VELU PILAI, VELLATTIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686016. 2 RAJAN G., VATTAKKATT HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686506. 3 JONES JOHN, KALAYIL CHAITHANYA HOUSE, THIRUVALLA R.S. P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689111. BY ADVS. M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SHRI. SHIJOY JOHN MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2 TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685531. 3 VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685503. 4 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695035. 5 DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA P.O., 685589, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6 SUB REGISTRAR, **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **2** PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685531. SMT.M.ANIMA.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Exts.P22 to P25 proceedings issued by the Village Officer, Vagamon, rejecting their request for issuance of Record of Rights (ROR) Certificate with respect to their respective properties, solely on the ground that the same enjoys exemption under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ('KLR Act' for short). 2. Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders are egregiously improper because it has been issued by the Village Officer without even adverting to the binding precedents of this Court in _**Devasia R.V and another v.Sub Registrar, Idukki, and others**_ [2015 (1) KHC 805] and in _**Saleem and another v. State of Kerala and others**_ [2012 KHC 2778], **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **4** whereby, it has been affirmatively declared that no party is expected to produce a “No Objection Certificate of the Revenue Department to register a document with respect to their properties, over which the ownership remains unimpeached. The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the reason given in Ext.P22 to P25, that the property enjoys protection under the KLR Act, is without any basis; and that this is more so because, it is also well settled, even if it is enjoying any such exemption, the only obligation is that the purchasers must also maintain it as a Plantation as per the rigor of the provisions therein. 3. Sri.Madhavankutty, thus prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and that either the Village Officer be directed to issue his clients an apposite ROR certificate or that the 6[th] respondent - Sub Registrar, be directed to **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **5** register the document without such certificate. 4. In response, Smt.M.Anima – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, submitted that, apart from the reasons stated in the impugned proceedings, there is another legal impediment standing in the way of the Village Officer and Sub Registrar from allowing the request of the petitioners, because the computerisation of the records in the area in question is continuing and that it will take at least another six months time to complete the same. She submitted that, therefore, until and unless the records are digitised, it will not be possible for the Sub Registrar to allow registration of the documents, as per the request of the petitioners. 5. In reply, Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty – learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **6** that the afore submissions of Smt.Anima goes contrary to Ext.P13 certificate issued by the Tahsildar and therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted. 6. I have examined the impugned orders and have also evaluated the rival submissions made by the learned counsel as recorded above. 7. Going by the impugned proceedings, the only reason stated by the Village Officer, in not issuing the ROR certificate as applied for by the petitioners, is that their properties are enjoying exemption under the provisions of the KLR Act. However, the law has now been well settled, as rightly argued by Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, that unless the properties are put to use for purposes other than for which it has been granted exemption under the KLR Act, no action can be taken by **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **7** the competent Authority, including to impede the registration of documents. 8. In such perspective, when I evaluate the further submissions of Smt.M.Anima – learned Government Pleader, that it is on account of the ongoing digitisation that the registration of the documents cannot be permitted, I must say that I cannot find favour with them, because merely for the reason that the said process is underway, the eligible rights of citizens cannot be impeded in any manner; and consequently, the Sub Registrar has a duty to act within the contours of law. In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and set aside the impugned proceedings; with a consequential direction to the Village Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioners for ROR certificate, adverting specifically to the **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **8** afore cited precedents of this Court and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners; thus leading to an appropriate orders/necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On the Village Officer issuing the ROR certificate as afore, the petitioners will be at liberty to produce the same, along with the documents they want to register, before the 6[th] respondent – Sub Registrar, who shall take necessary action thereon, notwithstanding the noncompletion of the digitization process and register the documents manually, or in such other manner as is alternatively available, without any avoidable delay, but not later than two weeks thereafter. Needless to say, consequent to the **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **9** digitization process, if there are any alterations or modifications to the entries in the Revenue Records or such other, the petitioners will be bound by the same, subject to their available remedies; and I leave full liberty to the competent Authority to complete the said process uninhibited by the directions afore. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** SAS/18/01/2022 **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8953/2020** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.05.2006| |---|---| ||BEARING NO.1578 OF 2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S| ||OFFICE, PEERUMEDU.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.05.2006| ||BEARING NO.1577 OF 2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S| ||OFFICE, PEERUMEDU.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.05.2006| ||BEARING NO.1579 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S| ||OFFICE, VAGAMON.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 27.12.2006| ||BEARING NO.17/2007 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,| ||PEERUMEDU.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST| ||PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED| ||16.05.2008.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND| ||PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED| ||16.05.2008.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD| ||PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED| ||16.05.2008.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED| ||16.05.2008.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED FOR THE| ||PERIOD 2011-2012 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED| ||20.12.2011.| **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **11** |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED FOR THE| |---|---| ||PERIOD 2011-2012 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED| ||20.12.2011.| |EXHIBIT P11|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED FOR THE| ||PERIOD 2011-2012 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED| ||20.12.2011.| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED FOR THE| ||PERIOD 2011-2012 TO THE PETITIONERS DATED| ||20.12.2011.| |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.09.2007| ||BEARING NO.C3-10351/07 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P14|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY| ||THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 28.01.2016 BEFORE| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P15|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.07.2016 FROM| ||THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P16|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2016 IN| ||W.P.(C)NO.21515/2016 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |EXHIBIT P17|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2016 IN| ||W.P.(C)NO.28621/2016 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT.| |EXHIBIT P18|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE| ||1ST PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2019.| |EXHIBIT P19|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE| ||2ND PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2019.| |EXHIBIT P20|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE| ||3RD PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2019.| |EXHIBIT P21|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE| ||PETITIONERS DATED 06.05.2019.| **WP(C) NO. 8953 OF 2020** **12** |EXHIBIT P22|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.01.2019| |---|---| ||BEARING NO.4/2020 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P23|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.01.2019| ||BEARING NO.6/2020 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P24|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.02.2020 FROM| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P25|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.01.2019| ||BEARING NO.85/2020 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.|