Vanditha Mani Nambiar vs Village Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 77 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
           MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
                              WP(C) NO. 30214 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

                  VANDITHA MANI NAMBIAR
                  AGED 52 YEARS
                  W/O SALILDHAR, TC 31/944(1), PUTHENTODE,
                  PALCULANGARA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                  REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HER FATHER VIKRAMAN
                  MANI @ P.M.MANY AGED 82 YEARS,
                  S/O P.K. THIRUMULPAD,
                  TC 31/944 (1) PUTHENTODE,
                  PALKULANGARA P.O.PIN-695 024,
                  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                  K.R.CHANDRANDHAN PILLAI

                  BY ADV ANOOP KRISHNA



RESPONDENTS:

       1          VILLAGE OFFICER
                  OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
                  THEKKUMKARA, THEKKUM KARA,
                  MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680 589,
                  THRISSUR DISTRICT
       2          SUB REGISTRAR,
                  OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTER,
                  VADAKUMKARA P.O.VADAKUMKARA,
                  PIN-680 662. THRISSUR, DISTRICT
       3          MANJUSHARANJITH
                  AGED 40 YEARS
                  W/O RANJITH, SANTHIMADOM,
                  THEKENALUVASHI, N PARAVUR P.O.
                  PIN-683 513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

OTHER PRESENT:

                  SMT. DEEPA.N. SR G P.


THIS       WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 30214 OF 2021
                                    2




                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the

2nd respondent - Sub Registrar is refusing to register the

document presented with respect to his property, the details

of which have been stated in the pleadings of this writ petition,

solely for the reason that he had not obtained a Record of

Rights (ROR) Certificate from the Competent Authority.

2. Sri.Anoop Krishna - learned counsel for the

petitioner, argued that, as has been well settled by this Court

in Jacob P.C. V. Village Officer, Eranakulam and another

(2020(4) KHC 167), the production of ROR Certificate is

only optional and not mandatory; and therefore, that 2 nd

respondent could not have refused registration of the

document for that sole reason. He thus reiteratingly prayed

that this Court direct the 2 nd respondent to accept and register

the document to be presented by his client, without insisting

on an ROR Certificate.

3. In response, Smt.M.Deepa - learned Senior WP(C) NO. 30214 OF 2021

Government Pleader, submitted that this writ petition has been

filed with a speculative cause of action because, the petitioner

has not produced the document for registration before the 2 nd

respondent as of now. She submitted that it is only when the

document is presented, can the said Authority take a decision

whether a ROR Certificate is necessary; and that, while doing

so, he will certainly keep in mind the declarations of law in

Jacob P.C.(supra).

4. When I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader

as afore, I am certain that the petitioner cannot impel any

grievance yet, particularly when the document in question has

not been rejected by the 2 nd respondent. I am, therefore, of

the firm view that petitioner must be given an opportunity of

doing so, so that 2nd respondent can take a decision appositely,

adverting to the declarations of law in Jacob P.C. (supra).

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and grant liberty to

the petitioner to present the document, which he intends to

register, before the 2nd respondent; and if this is done within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) NO. 30214 OF 2021

judgment, the said Authority will consider the same, adverting

specifically to Jacob P.C.(supra), and after affording necessary

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus culminating

in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one week

thereafter.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 30214 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30214/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICATION IN EP NO 118/2017 IN OS NO 56/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL SUB COURT (DECREE TRASFERED FROM CHAVAKAD SUB COURT)

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY ADDL SUB JUDGE IRINJALAKUDA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICATION AGREEMENT EXECUTED BEFORE THE MEDICATION CENTRE IRINJALAKUDA COURT DATED 22.9.2021

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN OS NO 56/2014 DATED 30.8.2016, ON THE FILE OF THE CHAVAKKAD SUB COURT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT VELLANGALLOR OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER ON 18.11.2021