Samson And Sons Builders And ... vs The District Registrar (General)
2021 Latest Caselaw 12938 Ker

  WP(C).2533/21                      1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
  TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 2533 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1     SAMSON AND SONS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
          HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC 3/678, TKD ROAD,
          MUTTADA, THIRUVAANANTHAPURAM-695 025, REPRESENTED
          BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.JOHN JACOB.

    2     MR. SAMUEL JACOB,
          AGED 999 YEARS
          DIRECTOR, SAMSON AND SONS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
          PVT LTD, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC 3/678, TKD
          ROAD, MUTTADA , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 025.

          BY ADVS.
          S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
          SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
          SRI.P.PRIJITH
          SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
          SRI.R.GITHESH
          SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
          SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
          SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
          DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

    2     THE SUB REGISTRAR,
          SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, KARAKULAM, PIN-695 564.

    3     THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
          DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE,
          KANOOS CASTLE, A.K SESHADRI ROAD, COCHIN-692011.
      WP(C).2533/21                       2

       4     KIRAN VARADARAJAN,
             AGED 35 YEARS
             S/O SRI.S.VARADARAJAN, SURYAKIRAN, CC NO 44/1441,
             C S ROAD, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
             695 014.

       5     SANEJ C.NAIR,
             AGED 49 YEARS
             S/O MR. CHANDRASENAN NAIR, MANGALYA KRA B3A, LANE,
             KURUVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

       6     MANOJ T ABRAHAM,
             AGED 50 YEARS
             THEKKOTTIL, VADASSERY KARA P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA,
             PIN-689 662.

       7     MANJU MARY VARGHESE,
             AGED 48 YEARS
             W/O MANOJ T ABRAHAM, THEKKOTTIL, VADASSERY KARA
             P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 662.

             BY ADVS.
             GOVERNMENT PLEADER
             SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC
             SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
             SHRI.HARIMOHAN



OTHER PRESENT:

              GP PRINCY XAVIER



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    15.06.2021,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
   WP(C).2533/21                          3




                              V.G.ARUN, J.
               -----------------------------------------------
                      W.P(C).No.2533 of 2021
               -----------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 15th day of June, 2021

                               JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the

construction of multistoried residential and commercial apartments

and the 2nd petitioner is one of its Directors. The petitioners had

commenced construction of one of its apartment buildings by name

'Sharon Hills Phase-II' at Vattapara in Thiruvananthapuram. The work

was being carried out with the financial assistance of the State Bank

of India. The petitioners failed to complete the construction within

the promised time and the persons who had invested money for

purchasing the apartments initiated legal action by filing criminal

complaints and writ petitions. All the cases, except two, were settled

through mediation as evidenced by Exhibit P1 judgment. The

petitioners complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and

thereupon, the State Bank of India granted permission to sell certain

number of apartments in Sharon Hills Phase-II. Accordingly, the

petitioners executed sale deeds in favour of respondents 4, 5, 6 and

7 and submitted the documents before the 2nd respondent for

registration. The 2nd respondent refused to register the sale deeds

based on a communication received from the Enforcement

Directorate and issued Exhibits P7 to P9 objection slips. The writ

petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibits P7 to P9 and to direct the

2nd respondent to register Exhibits P4 to P6 sale deeds.

2. A perusal of Exhibits P7 to P9 objections reveals the reason

for refusal to be a communication dated 2.1.2019 received from the

Enforcement Directorate. It is also clear that the Registrar General

has permitted to register the documents on receipt of no objection

from the Enforcement Directorate. The communication dated

2.1.2019 issued by the Enforcement Directorate (Exhibit P10)

requires the District Registrar to send certified copies of the sale

deeds and encumbrance certificates of the properties mentioned

therein. It is also stated therein that the properties are suspected to

be part of the proceeds of crime and no transaction in relation to

those immovable assets must be done without prior information.

3. On behalf of the Enforcement Directorate a statement has

been filed clarifying its stand. The relevant portion of that statement

is extracted hereunder;

"3. Consequent tot he registration of ECIR, the 3 rd respondent proceeded to collect the requisite evidence to ascertain, identify, tracing and immobilizing the proceeds of crime derived or linked to the scheduled

offence for action of attachment or seizure or freezing under section 5, Section 17 or Section 17(1-A) respectively of the PMLA. As part of this process letters were sent to all District Registrars (General) of Kerala under section 54(hf) of PMLA, 2002 on 2.1.2019.

4. In the said letter it was requested to send the certified copies of the Sale Deeds and Encumbrance Certificate of all properties of the 1st petitioner (Company) and 13 individuals including the 2 nd petitioner. Moreover, it was advised in the letter that since the properties of the persons mentioned in the letter are under investigation, any transaction inr elation with immovable assets must not be done without prior information. That instruction is a common part of all letters addressed to the District Registrars (General) of Kerala while seeking the details of properties in all investigation under the PMLA 2002. Such advice/instruction is not a bar to registration of any property. It is intended only to get an information regarding the transfer of property in the name of persons mentioned in the requisition letter. The NOC from the investigating officer in PMLA cases is not at all required for the registration of any property and the Enforcement Directorate does not issue NOC as insisted by the 2nd respondent."

4. It is hence clear that the communication of the Enforcement

Directorate does not interdict registration of documents to which the

1st petitioner is a party. It has been made clear that NOC from the

investigating officer in PMLA cases is not at all required for the

registration of any property and the Enforcement Directorate does

not issue any NOC to that effect.

5. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the Sub

Registrar also mentioned about certain attachments over the

properties sought to be registered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of

this Court in W.P.(C).No.34636 of 2010 and contended that

attachments over immovable property is no reason to deny

registration. In W.P(C).No.34636 of 2010, despite the currency of

attachment of order, this Court had directed registration of the sale

deed.

In the light of the clarification provided by the Enforcement

Directorate and the judgment in W.P(C).No.34636 of 2010, the writ

petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to register

Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 sale deeds, on the petitioners complying with

the statutory requirements.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2533/2021

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 29597 OF 2018 DATED 9.1.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE KARAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 18.11.2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 9.12.2020 EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 6.1.2021 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 18.1.2021 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SLIP DATED 10.12.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING EXHIBIT P4 SALE DEED

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SLIP DATED 6.1.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING EXHIBIT P5 SALE DEED

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SLIP DATED 18.1.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING EXHIBIT P6 SALE DEED

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO ECIR/01/KCZO/2019/AS/13 DATED 2.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT