1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the alleged unauthorised endorsement of attachment made against the property of the petitioner, in the encumbrance certificate. The question raised is whether the Sub Registrar is competent to make an endorsement regarding attachment of immovable property on the basis of a request made by an investigating officer, who is conducting an investigation into certain crimes, involving the owner of the property.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the case, are the following:

The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a registered partnership firm 'LIS'. The firm purchased 10 cents of property included in Survey No.380/2 of Ernakulam Village, as per Ext.P1 registered assignment deed. The petitioner obtained Ext.P2 encumbrance certificate for the purpose of obtaining a loan from a bank. An attachment has been shown in the encumbrance certificate and when enquiries were made, the petitioner was supplied with the copy of a letter issued by the third respondent Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narcotic Cell, addressed to the Sub Registrar. It is mainly submitted that Ext.P3 cannot be treated as an order of attachment by a lawful authority.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri M.K. Damodaran and Shri O.V. Maniprasad for the petitioner, Smt. T.D. Rajalakshmy, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded additional fourth respondent and learned Government Pleader, Shri Joseph George.

4. The impleading petition is filed by the additional fourth respondent stating that in the partnership firm he has invested an amount of Rs.15.5 lakhs and the maturity amount has not been disbursed so far.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Sub Registrar is not empowered by any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to pass an order of attachment and to show the same in the encumbrance certificate. It is submitted that an order of attachment can be passed only by a competent court which is absent here. It is further pointed out that the provisions under the Crl.P.C., especially Section 102 and Chapter VIIA will not apply as far as the present situation is concerned. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Sudhir Vasant Karnataki v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No.3198/2009) and that of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Balram Mihani and others {(2010) 2 SCC 602}.

6. The stand taken by the Sub Registrar, in the statement filed before this Court, is that Ext.P3 communication was issued by the third respondent to prevent further alienation of the property. The Police has registered two crimes against the petitioner, viz. Crime Nos.672/2006 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam and 133/2006 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. It is further stated that the investigation revealed that the accused firm run by the petitioner, after receipt of hefty amount to the tune of Rs. 447.63 crores in the year 2005 from the public, invested the money in real estate business. It is stated that from the records obtained from Mattanchery Sub Registrar Office, it is revealed that the accused has purchased land worth Rs.3.5 crores in 2005 and sold out the same to the Kerala Cricket Association for Rs.25.5 crores, in the year 2010. It is also submitted that the petitioner has purchased properties in his name and in the name of his relatives by committing fraud and criminal misappropriation with the ill gotten money obtained from the subscribers. So, the investigation revealed that these properties were not only the sale proceeds of crime but also the material evidence of the crime, though converted to be immovable properties. Finally, in para 7 it is stated that the entries are made in the records in good faith and intention to support the request of the third respondent as it has been considered to protect the interest of the Government. Therefore, the plea raised is