Kerala High Court
Sadashiva Poojary vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4026 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SADASHIVA POOJARY, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. RAMA POOJARY, BAKRABAIL,
PATHUR VILLAGE AND POST,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671323.
BY ADVS.
PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SMT.VANDANA MENON
SRI.VIMAL VIJAY
SHRI.RESHMA T.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD-671121.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD-671121.
4 TAHSILDAR, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671323,
(FORMERLY KASARAGOD TALUK)
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, KALIYOOR AT MEEYAPADAVU, MANJESHWAR
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671323.
SMT.SURYA BINOY.SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 4026/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner asserts that he was assigned the extent of
property involved in this case through Ext.P1 Order of Assignment
dated 22.09.2004; but concedes that Ext.P4 Purchase Certificate
was issued only on 21.08.2010. He submits that in Ext.P1, a
condition was imposed that he cannot sell the property for a
period of three years; but that, on 24.01.2009, an amendment was
brought in to the applicable Statutes and Regulations, which
enhanced this period to 25 years. He asserts that, however, this
amendment is not applicable to him because the Order of
Assignment in his favour is dated 22.09.2004.
2. Sri.Kodoth Pushparajan - learned counsel for the
petitioner, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Shekkabba
Beary v. State of Kerala and Others [2021(5) KHC 545], to argue
that this Court has already emphatically declared the law that
what is relevant is the date of Assignment of Registry as per the
WPC 4026/20
applicable Rules, and not the date on which the Purchase
Certificate was issued. He contended that, therefore, since the
date of assignment was 22.09.2004, which is much before the
amendment was brought in on 24.01.2009, the only rigour which
could have attached to the property of his client was the period
of three years and, that too, which began from the
aforementioned date. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this
Writ Petition be allowed.
3. In response, Smt.Surya Binoy - learned Senior
Government Pleader, submitted that since the Purchase Certificate
of the petitioner was issued only on 21.08.2010, the law that
applies on that day would have to be put into force, namely, that
the petitioner shall not sell the property covered by it for a period
of 25 years.
4. However, to a pointed question from this Court,
Smt.Surya Binoy conceded that this Court has declared in
Shekkabba Beary (supra) that the relevant date for computing the
WPC 4026/20
period of restraint against alienation is the date of Assignment of
the Registry and not the date of issuance of the Purchase
Certificate.
5. I have examined the afore rival submissions and have
also gone through Shekkabba Beary (supra).
6. It is without doubt that in Shekkabba Beary (supra),
this Court has held affirmatively that it is the date of Assignment
of Registry which is important for computing the period of the
restraint against alienation and not the date on which the
Purchase Certificate had been issued. Since the said judgment is
still holding field, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled
to benefit of the declarations therein.
7. In such perspective, since the petitioner's Order of
Assignment, namely Ext.P1, is dated 22.09.2004 - which is much
prior to the amendment which was brought on 24.01.2009; and
since, by the time the amendment was brought in, the rigour of
the period of restraint against alienation had already elapsed, as
WPC 4026/20
far as the property in question is concerned, I am certain that this
petition is deserving of being allowed.
In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition and set
aside the condition in Ext.P4 Purchase Certificate, to the extent
that the petitioner shall not alienate the property for a period of
25 years therefrom and declaring that the restraint against
alienation of the property covered by it would only be for a
period of three years from 22.09.2004, which has now expired.
Consequently, Ext.P9 is ordered to be not made applicable to
the land in question; and I leave liberty to the petitioner to deal
with the the same in any manner as he may choose as per law.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 4026/20
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4026/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LA
9/03/KALIYOOR DATED 22/09/2004 ISSUED BY
4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
OF RS.350/- DATED 02/03/2005.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
OF RS.20/- DATED 02/03/2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PATA ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER ON 21/08/2010.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ODER OF LAND ASSIGNMENT
DATED 01/2004 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
OF JAYAPRADHA.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF LAND ASSIGNMENT
DATED 01/2004 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
TO SHARMILA B.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PATTA ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO JAYAPRADHA ON 02/09/2004.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF PATA ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO SHARMILA ON 25/08/2004.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02/08/2019
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
