Kerala High Court
Molly vs Inspector General Of Registration ... on 31 May, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24711 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
MOLLY
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.P.J.ANTONY, AGED 55, HOUSE NO.16, PUTHUKERIL HOUSE,
PULIYUR GARDENS, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 001.
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4 SOJA LEONES
W/O.JOYKUTTY, RESIDING AT JEEVAN NIVAS, NAGAR LANE,
NALANCHIRA P.O., KUDAPPANAKKUNNU VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.
BY ADVS.
SMT.V.BEENA
SMT.V.DEEPA
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
SMT.N.G.SINDHU
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.24711 of 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
W.P (C) No.24711 of 2016
---------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and to quash
the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii) such other reliefs and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order which is
passed by the 2nd respondent based on the report from the 3 rd
respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this order
is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
As per the impugned order, the name of the petitioner was deleted
from the filing sheet of the sale deed No.212/1996 of SRO, Pattom
which were maintained in the office of the Sub Registrar, Pattom in
the regular post on the complaint filed by the 4 th respondent
alleging that her name was mentioned in the original of the
aforesaid deed.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Government
pleader and the counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent.
4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders is to be set aside and the matter is to be
reconsidered by the 1st respondent because the impugned order is
passed without hearing the petitioner after adverting his
contentions. Several contentions are raised in this writ petition.
Hence, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order
can be set aside for reconsideration.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:-
1) Ext.P2 is set aside.
2) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter,
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the
4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24711/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.212/1996 OF SUB
REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 15/1/1996.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.212/1996 OF SUB
REGISTRY OFFICE, PATTOM DATED 15/1/1996.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.L1-29631/2013 DATED
7/1/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
15/7/2015
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RTI REG-17062/2015
ATED 1/8/2015 ISSUED BY STATE PUBLIC
INBFORMATION OFFICER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY
PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RIA/03-15-16 DATED
24/8/2015 FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER OF PRINCIPAL SUB TREASURY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
