The court emphasized the authority of revenue officials under the Registration Act and upheld the right of the government to proceed against illegal possession of government lands under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the refusal of the 5th respondent to accept Ext.P3 sale deed for registration, the petitioners have approached this Court with this writ petition.

2. The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner company is owning a rubber plantation in Hosdurg, Kasargod District. The petitioners allege that after surrendering excess land out of 600 Acres with them in accordance with the Land Reforms Act, the 1st petitioner company was given Purchase Certificate of the rights of the land owner in respect of 275 Acres as per Ext.P1. After disposal of a major portion out of 275 Acres, 41 Acres are remaining under the ownership and possession of the first petitioner; so allege the petitioners. It is further alleged that out of plantation so sold as small holdings, 213 Acres are even now retained as rubber plantation. The petitioners allege that petitioners 2 and 3 entered into an agreement with the first petitioner to purchase the remaining 41 Acres with the specific intention of retaining the same as rubber plantation. Clear felling was conducted in respect of the old trees earlier and it is specifically stated in Ext.P3 sale deed that, that rubber trees would be replanted in a portion of the property. However, in view of Exts.P4 and P5 directions, the 5th respondent had refused to accept Ext.P3 sale deed for registration. The first petitioner approached the third respondent as per Ext.P6 representation. However, nothing has been done notwithstanding Ext.P7 report. It is with this background the petitioners have come up before this Court.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it was contended that Ext.P1 Pattayam is ex-facie fraudulent and was issued in gross violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to the third respondent, a Private Limited Company, under the guise of cultivating tenant has managed to acquire an extent of 275 Acres of garden land comprised in Re. Sy. No. 112/11A1 of Balal Village (formerly Maloth) of Hosdurg Taluk. According to the respondent, the issue of Purchase Certificate was in gross violation of the ceiling limits applicable to a Private Limited Company. It was contended that said Purchase Certificate does not bear any official seal or signature of the Tribunal. It was further contended that as per the provisions of the statute, Purchase Certificate can be issued only to a natural person or family as defined in Sub Sections 7 and 8 of Section 2 of KLR Act. Therefore, a Private Limited Company cannot claim the benefits of a cultivating tenant under any stretch of imagination. Based on Ext.P1, the petitioner company was indulged in fragmentation and transfer of the lands and the present attempt is to defeat the ceiling provisions of the Act. The land proposed to be transferred is a pucca rubber plantation. The petitioner has sold an extent of 234 Acres out of the illegally held property of 275 Acres. As per the provisions of the KLR Act, sale of plantation after obtaining exemption and conversion to some other categories of non-exempted lands are liable to be proceeded against as beyond the ceiling limit. The attempt of the petitioner to sell huge extent of land based on illegal documents is liable to be further enquired and proceeded against under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. The additional 6th respondent who got subsequently impleaded, has contended that the first petitioner is having right, title and ownership only in respect of 8.5 acres of property and the contention that the petitioners are having right, title and ownership over an extent of 41 acres of property is incorrect. It was contended that Ext.P1 Patta was issued to the first petitioner to retain 275 acres of property, only because 265 acres of property comes within the definition of plantation as per Section 2 (44) of th