P.B.Haneefa vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 8012 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 2560 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1     P.B.HANEEFA
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O. PAREEKUTTY, VELAMPARAMBIL, PALLURUTHY THEKKUMURI,
          PAALURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT
          33/1444, CHALIKKAVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 038
    2     V.A SADIQ
          AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O. C.P ALI, RESIDING AT VELIPARAMBIL, NETTOOR DESOM,
          MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI 682 304
          BY ADV. SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682 001
    2     VILLAGE OFFICER
          PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY P.O, PIN - 682 006
    3     SUB REGISTRAR
          SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KOCHI - 682 002
          SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2560 OF 2022
                                      2

               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              ------------------------------
              W.P.(C).No. 2560 of 2022
      ----------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022

                             JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following

prayers:

"(i) Quash Exhibit P2 notice issued by the 2 nd respondent by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to drop all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit-P2 since there is no attempt on the part of the petitioners to reclaim the land covered by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed and to lift the attachment/prohibitory orders, if any, issued;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3rd respondent to remove the attachment /prohibitory order from the Encumbrance certificate of the petitioners pertaining to the property covered by Exhibit-P1 Sale Deed;

(iv) Such other reliefs which in the circumstances of this case this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper."[SIC]

2. Petitioners are the absolute owners and in WP(C) NO. 2560 OF 2022

possession and enjoyment of 81 cents of land comprised

in Sy.No.1137/2 of Palluruthy Village. Petitioners

purchased the same by virtue of sale deed

No.5454/2007 of SRO, Kochi. The 2nd respondent on

20.03.2014, issued a notice alleging that the petitioners

are trying to fill up the property with read earth. The

petitioners have no intention to convert the land and it is

admittedly a paddy field. But when the petitioners took

the encumbrance certificate from the 3rd respondent,

there is an endorsement that there is a prohibitory

attachment order against the property purportedly

issued under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wet Land Act 2008. The petitioners apprehend that they

may not be able to alienate the property in the same

status because of this endorsement.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. The counsel for the petitioners reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition. The Government

Pleader on the other hand submitted that a prohibitory WP(C) NO. 2560 OF 2022

order is passed by the Village Officer as per Section 12

of the Act 2008. The Government Pleader submitted

that the same will not restrain the petitioners in

alienating the property and it is only not to convert the

land. If that is the case, there is no problem for

alienating the property. The counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the 3rd respondent is not allowing the

petitioners to alienate the property. I make it clear that

the alienation of the property is not prohibited and only

the conversion of the property is restrained. I also make

it clear that the endorsement in the encumbrance

certificate regarding prohibitory order will not stand in

the way of the petitioner transferring the property in

accordance to law.

With the above observation, this writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 2560 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2560/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 5454/2007 OF SRO, KOCHI EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-03-

2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-01-2019

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE