Kerala High Court
Lakshmi vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2025
2025:KER:46370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21824 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
1 LAKSHMI
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O. S.K.MALLAYAN, SHOLAYOOR P.O., ATTAPPADI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678581
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA
SMT.ATHIRA K.S.
SHRI.ATUL ANAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46370
W.P.(C.) No.21824 of 2025
-2-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.21824 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Ext.P7 Order of the 2nd respondent/District Collector is
under challenge. The petitioner got title to the subject
property by virtue of Ext.P1 gift deed, based upon which, he
got transfer of registry, as evidenced from Ext.P2. The
petitioner wants to transfer 5 cents out of the subject
property. In view of Section 4 of the Kerala Restriction on
Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes
Act, 1999, petitioner had to obtain a permission from the
2nd respondent to sell the property. Accordingly, an
application was filed. However, the same was rejected by the
2nd respondent vide Ext.P3, stating the pendency of a suit,
O.S. No.74/2019, before the Munsiff's Court, Mannarkkad. The
said suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the
petitioner's husband, who was the original owner, the
judgment of which is produced at Ext.P4. Petitioner again
2025:KER:46370
made an application for permission before the 2 nd respondent,
vide Ext.P5. When Ext.P5 was not considered, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.38480/2024,
which was disposed of vide Ext.P6 judgment, directing the 2 nd
respondent to pass orders in Ext.P5 representation, after
ascertaining whether an appeal has been filed from Ext.P4
judgment. Now, by virtue of Ext.P7, Ext.P5 application of
the petitioner is again rejected, dehors finding that no
appeal has been against Ext.P4 judgment. Ext.P7 is therefore
sought to be set aside.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader, this Court notice that there
is a clear finding in Ext.P7 to the effect that the opposite
parties (who filed the suit O.S. No.74/2019) have failed to
produce any document evidencing the filing of an appeal
challenging Ext.P4 judgment. That apart, an enquiry was
conducted through the Village Officer concerned as to
whether an appeal has been filed, who reported that, the
same has not been done. In the circumstances, rejection of
2025:KER:46370
Ext.P5 vide Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. A mere objection
raised by the persons who filed O.S. No.74/2019 is no reason
to reject petitioner's representation seeking permission to
sell the property. Petitioner's right has been categorically
held by virtue of a judgment of the Civil Court, which is
final and binding, unless appealed against and reversed. As
on the date of issuance of Ext.P7, the 2 nd respondent was
convinced that no such appeal was filed. If that be so,
rejection of petitioner's application vide Ext.P7 cannot be
sustained.
3. This Court, however, notice a difficulty when the issue
is considered from the angle of the prospective purchaser.
It is one thing to say that the appeal has not been filed so
far. However, being a civil appeal, the same can be
preferred, even with a petition to condone the delay, for
which reason, the possibility of an appeal in future cannot
be ruled out, altogether. Therefore, a notice is required to
be given in law to the prospective purchaser, which will
enable him to take an informed choice on the proposed
2025:KER:46370
purchase of the property. The said purpose will be served if
Ext.P5 is allowed, however, making the issuance of NOC,
subject to the result of the appeal, if any, preferred
against Ext.P4 judgment.
4. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed
directing the 2nd respondent to allow Ext.P5 and to issue NOC
for sale of the subject property, subject to the result of
an appeal, if any, preferred against the judgment in suit
O.S. No.74/2019 of the Munisff's Court, Mannarkkad.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SKP/26-06
2025:KER:46370
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21824/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.768 OF
2017 OF SRO AGALI, EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 03.08.2017
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 19.04.2024 IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 11.11.2021
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.04.2022 OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT,
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2022
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P.(C).NO.38480/2024 DATED 19.11.2024
EXHIBIT P7 . THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 08.04.2025
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
