IMPORTANT POINTS
The provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules have not been amended so as to incorporate such a mandatory condition insisting for production of ROR certificate before the deeds could be registered by the registration officials, the registration officials cannot refuse to register the same on the mere ground that the petitioner has not produced the ROR certificate in respect of the property concerned- But it is certainly optional for the party concerned to seek such certificate for the sake of completion of formalities- But non-production of such certificate cannot be the legal basis for the registration officials to refuse the request for registration.

JUDGMENT :

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

“(i) to issue a writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent directing him to issue ROR Certificate of the landed property having the extent of 33 cents in Sy.No. 38/1/2 of Elamkulam Village covered by Document No.2109/1109 ME of SRO Ernakulam, originally owned by I.C. Pailey the deceased father of the Original judgment Debtor to the petitioner.

(ii) To issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”

2. Heard Sri. K.R.Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for the respondents.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the decree holder in original suit, O.S.No.171/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The said suit was instituted seeking prayer for a decree of specific performance of contract with respect to the property having an extent of 3 cents in Sy.No. 38/1/2 of Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam revenue district. In view of the decree granted by the Sub Court concerned, the petitioner has filed application for executing the sale deed through the process of court. It is stated that after the approval of the draft sale deed submitted by the petitioner, the court below has now directed the petitioner to take steps for registration of the approved draft sale deed. That accordingly the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent Village Officer praying for issuance of ROR certificate of the above said property covered Ext.P-2, as ROR certificate is now insisted by the registration officials concerned for completing the process of registration of the draft sale deed duly approved by the court below concerned. The complaint of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 18.12.2018 before the respondent Village Officer, for issuance of ROR certificate, the said certificate is not being issued by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner has to necessarily produce basic tax receipt in respect of the above said property and that the said decision of the 1st respondent has been duly endorsed on the reverse of the last page of Ext.P-3 application. Though the petitioner has not produced the said endorsement, Sri. K.R. Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made available the original of the said endorsement made by the respondent Village Officer on 18.12.2018 for the perusal of this Court, which reads as follows:

4. The petitioner would point out that the registered land holder of the said property is the defendant in the suit and he is not co-operating with the petitioner to make available the copy of the basic land tax receipt. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner prays that direction may be given to the Village Officer to consider and grant the ROR certificate to the petitioner in respect of the property concerned without insisting on the production of the basic land tax receipt.

5. Having heard both sides, this Court is of the considered view that there is substance in the contention raised by Sri. K.R. Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the registered land holder of the property concerned, who is none other than the defendant in the suit, is not co-operating with the petitioner and that he is not handing over the basic land tax receipt issued to him by the 1st respondent Village Officer.

6. The fact that the defendant in the suit, who is the registered land holder is at loggerheads with the petitioner, is evident from the fact that the petitioner has been constrained to initiate litigative proceedings against the said party for enforcement of the contract of sale of the property concerned. Therefore, the impugned insistence made by the respondent Village Officer that the petitioner himself should produce the basic land tax receipt in respect of the property concerned is rather an impossible task for the petitioner. Moreover, it a