IMPORTANT POINT
"virivu land" mentioned in sale deeds are Government land (Kayal Puramboke land) in illegal possession- It will not preclude the competent authorities under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder from taking necessary steps in case such property has been encroached and also for consequential action for eviction, as envisaged in the said Act and the Rules.
Without obtaining NOC under Sec.71(3) and after paying stamp duty thereon, etc., then the situation would have been different and invocation of the powers under Sec.83A(2) & (3) could have been considered --"virivu" land, if it is secured by illegal encroachment into Government property/public property then the procedure envisaged in Sec.71(3) and Sec.83A (2) & (3) of the Registration Act will not come into play

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to hold enquiry as provided under Section 83A(2) and 71(3) of the Registration Act in relation to Ext.P1 to P7 Sale Deeds and make recommendation to cancel the same to the first respondent on finding that Government land is included in Exts.P1 to P7 in violation of Section 71(3) of the Act, as requested in Exhibits P10 and P11;

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to cancel Exts.P1 to P7 upon the 2nd respondent filing report showing that in Exts.P1 to P7 Government land is included in violation of Section 71(3) of the Registration Act; and

(c) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Dr. V.N. Sankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondents 5 to 14 will stand dispensed with.

3. The petitioner would state that contesting respondents 5 to 8 are holding 2 Acres & 39.53 cents of Government land (kayal puramboke) in their illegal and unauthorised possession under the guise of Exts.P-1 to P-7 registered sale deeds, in which Government lands are illegally included by describing the same as “virivu”, which according to the petitioners is in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act. That the actual extent of property covered by Exts.P-1 to P-9 is only 68.47 cents. But whereas contesting respondents 5 to 8 have the illegal possession of more than 2 acres & 39.53 cents of Government land (kayal puramboke), apart from the abovesaid 68.47 cents. Further that, contesting respondents are taking steps to illegally reclaim the kayal puramboke etc.

4. The petitioners would further state that they have submitted Ext.P-10 representation dated 01.09.2018 to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Alappuzha, with copy to the 1st respondent (Inspector General of Registration), requesting to hold enquiry under Sec.83A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and for cancellation of Exts.P-1 to P-7 registered sale deeds executed in favour of contesting respondents 5 to 8 etc., by invoking the provisions contained in Sec.83A(2) & (3) of the Registration Act. The petitioners would further contend that the registration of the impugned sale deeds as per Exts.P-1 to P-7 are in contravention of Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act, in as much as the sale deeds also involve Government kayal puramboke land etc. It is further pointed out that contesting respondents 9 to 14 are the persons from whom contesting respondents 5 to 8 had purchased the properties as per Exts.P-5 to P-7 registered sale deeds.

5. This Court had queried to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to whether the actual area of land conveyed by Exts.P-1 to P-7 is only 68.47 cents and whether petitioners will get any title deed in respect of the “virivu area” merely because of the recital of those land areas as “virivu” in Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds and also whether stamp duty has been paid for Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds only for 68.47 cents or for the larger extent of land inclusive of the “virivu area”. To this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions that actual land area conveyed as per the schedules of Exts.P-1 to P-7 is only 68.47 cents and that stamp duty has been paid only in respect of 68.47 cents and not for the entire extent of land inclusive of the “virivu area” coming to 2 Acres and 39.53 cents etc. If that be so, merely because Exs.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds would recite not only about 68.47 cents of land but also about the “virivu”, will not by itself confer any titl