Basheer, J:

Are the Revenue Officials legally competent or entitled to interdict a registering authority under the Registration Act 1908 from registering a sale deed on the ground that the subject matter of the document is suspected to be a revenue puramboke land?

2. Can the Revenue officials direct the registering authority to register the document only on production of a No Objection Certificate from the revenue officials?

3. These two questions came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in the writ petition filed by the appellants. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the District Collector, Idukki District to take a decision on the request made by appellant No.1 for issue of a No Objection Certificate. The learned Judge directed that such a certificate be issued to appellant No.1 if there are no "inhibiting factors". The above order is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Appellant No.1 is stated to be the owner in possession of 1 acre 40 cents of land in Sy.No.1/1 of Chinnakkanal Village of Idukki District. According to the appellant, his father late Marimuthu obtained the said property on the strength of Ext.P1 Patta dated May 25, 1971 issued by Special Tahsildar (LA.No.II) Nedumkandom of Idukki District. After the death of Marimuthu. appellant No.1 became the exclusive owner of the property when the other legal heirs executed a registered sale deed in his favour (Document No.786/85 of Rajakumari Sub Registry office). Appellant No.1 contended that mutation in respect of the property was effected in his name and he had been paying land tax. Ext.P2 is stated to be photocopy of the tax receipt. Village Officer, Chinnakkanal had issued Ext.P3 possession certificate in the name of appellant No.1 in August 2004.

5. Appellant contended that he had executed Ext.P4 sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of appellants 2 and 3 and presented the same for registration before the Sub Registrar, Rajakumari. However the Sub Registrar by Ext.P5 communication dated March 31, 2009 informed that registration can be effected only after getting clarification from the Revenue officials in the light of the communication received from the Sub Collector, Devikulam informing that registration of documents relating to properties in Chinnakkanal village can be entertained only on production of "No Objection Certificate" from the authorities concerned.

6. On receipt of the said communication appellant No.1 submitted Ext.P6 application before the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk requesting him to issue No Objection Certificate to enable him to get the document registered in favour of appellants 2 and 3. But there was no response from the authorities.

7. Appellants preferred the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities is not necessary for registering Ext.P4 sale deed.

8. As mentioned earlier, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the District Collector to take a decision on Ext.P6 application for grant of No Objection Certificate to appellant No.1, if there is no impediment.

9. It is vehemently contended by Sri.Alexander Joseph, learned counsel for the appellants that the embargo placed by the revenue authorities on the registering authority is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and vitiated. He contends that the above procedure adopted by the revenue authorities is unheard of and totally without any authority of law. Department of Revenue has no jurisdiction or sanction of law to interfere with the powers and authority vested with the Registrar or Sub Registrar, as the case may be, in the matter of registration of a document as provided under the Registration Act 1908.

10. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the relevant provisions under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. While referring to Rule 67