1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It had entered into an agreement with Smt.Ramla and others on 15.12.2010 for the purchase of 16.97 ares of land situate in R.S.No.174/11A of Iringapram Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. On the very same day the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Smt.Vaheeda for the purchase of her undivided share in 15.78 ares of land situate in R.S.No.174/11A of Iringapram Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. On the basis of the aforesaid agreements Smt.Ramla and others executed the original of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 5.1.2011 on stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs.10,78,000/-. Smt. Vaheeda had likewise executed the original of Ext.P2 sale deed dated 7.1.2011 on stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs.1,64,500/-. The aforesaid documents were presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kottappady on 14.1.2011 but they were returned without being registered in view of Ext.P3 letter dated 7.1.2011 sent by the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch, CID EOW-III, Sub Unit, Kannur to the Sub Registrar, Kottappady whereby the Sub Registrar was requested not to register instruments in relation to the lands described therein which include the lands covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds, without first obtaining his clearance. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon made enquiries and came to know that criminal cases had been registered against the predecessors-in-interest of his vendors and it was in view of the aforesaid fact that Ext.P3 letter was sent to the Sub Registrar concerned and Ext.P4 report dated 5.2.2011 submitted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnani. The petitioner has also averred that when the Sub Registrar declined to register the originals of Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds, the vendors moved the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnani by filing Crl.M.P.No.748 of 2011 and other applications and prayed for an order rejecting Ext.P4 report, that the said applications were dismissed by order passed on 28.5.2011, that they thereupon filed Crl.M.C.No.1925 of 2011 in this Court and that by Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 5.11.2013, a learned single Judge of this Court held that the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the properties in exercise of the powers under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the order of attachment. The petitioner has further averred that though thereafter the originals of Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds were presented for registration on 4.2.2014, the Sub Registrar declined to register the sale deeds on the ground that they were not presented for registration within the period of four months from the date of execution or within the period of eight months from the date of execution after paying the prescribed fine. It is stated that Exts.P6 and P7 memos styled as objections were also issued on the same day setting out the above reasons. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P7 memos issued by the second respondent Sub Registrar and seeks the following reliefs:-

"i) writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P6 and P7 objections passed by the 2nd respondent;

ii) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to accept Exhibits P1 & P2 sale deeds for registration and to register the same forthwith;

iii) a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the stamp duty paid by it in respect of Exts.P1 & P2 sale deeds by virtue of proviso (b) to Section 48(3) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 in case the petitioner is compelled to substitute Exts.P1 & P2 deeds with fresh sale deeds for the purpose of registration."

2. The principal contention raised in the instant writ petition is that where the registration of a document could not be effected within the time limit stip