According to the petitioner, she is having ownership and possession of 4.86 Ares of landed property covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.3504/1/2015 dated 8.10.2015 of SRO, Taliparamba. That mutations have also been effected in the name of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P-2. That land tax has also been collected from the petitioner as per Ext.P-2. It is further stated that years back, transfer of about 439.74 Ares of property including the property now owned by the petitioner, was kept in abeyance by respondents 1 to 3 purportedly under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act). However, subsequently the 3rd respondent (Taluk Land Board) had permitted piecemeal transactions with respect to those properties through an order in TLB/2/92/TBA dated 30.11.1994. It is under the benefit of such orders that the petitioner had purchased the properties covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed, it is averred. The grievance of the petitioner is that now the 4th respondent Sub Registrar, Taliparamba, is refusing to register the sale deed with respect to the properties referred to above and consequently, the petitioner is unable to sell the property covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed. The petitioner would point out that in identical situations, this Court had issued directions in the matter of registration of such properties, as evident from Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5 judgments of this Court in W.P.(C).No.5708/2018, W.P.(C).No. 11722/2018 and W.P.(C).No. 41077/2017 respectively. The petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Selvam v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010(1) KLT 508, wherein this Court has held that, going by the provisions contained in the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder, no embargo or interdiction can be placed by the Revenue officials on registering officers, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers :

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or order directing the 4th respondent to accept the sale deed for registration as and when it is submitted by the petitioner for registration.

(ii) Issue such other orders as this Honourable Court may consider necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri. P.B. Ajoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

3. This Court in similar situation has interfered in the matter for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner therein as in the instant case, as can be seen from Exts.P3 to P-5 judgments. Ext.P-3 judgment dated 21.2.2018 in W.P.(C).No.5708/2018 reads as follows:

“The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the fourth respondent to register the sale deeds in respect of the properties covered by Exhibits P1 and P2 sale deeds in their favour. The petitioners' case is that because of a ban issued by the second respondent, the fourth respondent is refusing to register the documents.

2. In the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Selvam v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KLT 508], the registration cannot be declined by the fourth respondent acting upon the dictates of the second respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to accept the documents and take it up for registration in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that even if the documents are registered, the same shall be done without prejudice to any proceedings that may be initiated by respondents second and three. On the basis of registration, the revenue officials shall also effect transfer of registry. No costs.”

Exts.P-4 to P-5 judgments in W.P.(C).Nos.11722/2018 and 41077/ 2017 are also on similar lines.

4. Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Cou