Binoy vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 22628 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943

                           WP(C) NO. 23678 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

              BINOY
              AGED 38 YEARS
              S/O THERULLY VARGHESE, THERULLY HOUSE, MANGALY, MANNAM.P.O,
              NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683520.

              BY ADVS.
              S.SUDHISH KUMAR
              K.B.DAYAL
              SIBI KARUN
              GOPIKA.N.NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
              ERNAKULAM.

     2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              KARUMALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.




              SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         2


W.P.(C)No. 23678 of 2021




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021.

The petitioner, who is stated to be the brother of

Sri.Biju, has approached this Court seeking a

direction to the 2nd respondent - Village officer to

effect change of transfer of Registry of the property

covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of the

aforementioned Sri.Biju, de hors Ext.P4 attachment

order, asserting that even if the said order is in force,

the request of his brother cannot be refused.

2. However, Smt.Surya Binoy - the learned

Senior Government Pleader, submitted that this writ

petition is not maintainable, without the owner of the

property in question being on the party array. She

W.P.(C)No. 23678 of 2021

then submitted that the petitioner has not produced

any Power of Attorney on record and that, in fact, a

defect was noticed by the Registry of this Court

initially for this reason. She, therefore, prayed that

this writ petition be not allowed.

3. I notice from the files that the afore

submissions of Smt.Surya Binoy are accurate

because, at the time when this writ petition was

moved, a defect was noticed by the Registry, but it

was directed to be numbered, subject to the same.

4. It is fundamental that the petitioner could

have approached this Court on behalf of his brother

only on proper Authority. However, there is no such

available on record until now.

5. I, therefore, find considerable force in the

submissions of the learned Senior Government

W.P.(C)No. 23678 of 2021

Pleader.

6. That said, since the petitioner says that he

is authorized by his brother, I deem it appropriate to

grant him a limited latitude; however, with full liberty

being reserved to the 2nd respondent to decide his

competence at the time when the directions that I

propose herein are complied with.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the

limited extent of directing Sri.Biju or any other

person authorized by him - who may be the

petitioner or anyone else - to appear before the 2 nd

respondent - Village Officer at 11:00 AM on

03.12.2021; on which day, said Authority will either

hear him or fix another convenient date for such

purpose; thus culminating in appropriate orders and

necessary action, on the request for transfer of

W.P.(C)No. 23678 of 2021

Registry of the property in question in favour of Sri

Biju as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

two months from the said date.

Needles to say, if Sri. Biju does not appear in

person, the 2nd respondent will be at full liberty to

verify the worth of the authorization granted by him

to the person who appears before him and to

convince himself of the same, before completing the

afore exercise.

Consequently, Sri.Biju will ensure that the

Authorization offered by him to either the petitioner

or to anyone else on his behalf, is as per law and

made in the manner as required under the applicable

Statutes.

Needles to say, even though I have directed the

2nd respondent to comply with the afore directions de

W.P.(C)No. 23678 of 2021

hors Ext.P4, he will be at full liberty to verify whether

the attachment mentioned therein is still in effect on

the property, while the resultant orders are issued.

It will also but be specifically borne in mind by

the 2nd respondent that merely because there is an

attachment on the property, normally the transfer of

Registry cannot be refused, since the same runs on

the property, but does not reflect upon its ownership.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Raj/22.11.2021.

W.P.(C)No. 23678 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23678/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.570/2021 OF SRO CHENGAMANAD.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM SRO CHENGAMANAD FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-1- 1994 TO 22-12-2020.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE SRO CHENGAMAND DATED 8-9-2021 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 22-12-2020 TO 7-9-2021.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7-9-2021.