JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 cancellation deed No.945/1/2020 dated 19.05.2020 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thodupuzha. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Sub Registrar, Karikode to strike off and remove the entries of Ext.P4 cancellation deed No.945/1/2020 dated 19.05.2020 from the register in relation to the property having an extent of 11.33 ares in Sy.No.1459/1/1622 of Vannapuram Village; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to issue encumbrance certificate without mentioning Ext.P4 cancellation deed No.945/1/ 2020 dated 19.05.2020 with respect to the property having an extent of 11.33 ares in Sy.No.1459/1/1622 of Vannapuram Village; and an order declaring that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 11.33 ares of land in Sy.No.1459/1/1622 of Vannapuram Village and building situated therein, by virtue of Exts.P1 to P3 documents.

2. On 13.07.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. This Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the 3rd respondent, returnable within ten days. This Court granted an interim order directing the 2nd respondent Village Officer not to effect mutation with respect to the property having an extent of 11.33 ares in Sy.No.1459/1/1622 of Vannapuram Village, in favour of the 3rd respondent, by virtue of Ext.P4 cancellation deed No.945/1/2020 dated 19.05.2020 of the Sub Registrar Office, Karikode, for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

4. The pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides would show that the 3rd respondent father executed Ext.P1 settlement deed No.2358/1/2019 dated 25.09.2019 of the Sub Registrar Office, Karikode, in favour of the petitioner son, with respect to 11.33 ares of land in Sy.No.1459/1/1622 of Vannapuram Village, with a residential building situated therein. In Ext.P1 settlement deed, there occurred certain mistakes in the description of the southern and northern boundaries of the property and also its survey number. The 3rd respondent executed Ext.P2 rectification deed bearing No.2642/1/2019 dated 31.10.2019 of the Sub Registrar Office, Karikode. In terms of Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner effected mutation of the property in his name and remitted land tax on 19.10.2019, as evidenced by Ext.P3 tax receipt. On the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 deeds, the petitioner became the absolute owner in possession of the property having an extent of 11.33 ares. While so, the 3rd respondent executed Ext.P4 cancellation deed No.945/1/2020 dated 19.05.2020 of the Sub Registrar Office, Karikode, which is one executed unilaterally by the 3rd respondent. On coming to know about the registration of Ext.P4 cancellation deed, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Village Officer. From the 2nd respondent, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent has already approached the 2nd respondent for getting mutation of the property pursuant to Ext.P4 cancellation deed. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 09.06.2020 before the 2nd respondent, pointing out that the application made by the 3rd respondent for mutation, on the strength of Ext.P4 cancellation deed, is liable to be rejected.

5. Admittedly, on the strength of Ext.P1 settlement deed bearing No.2358/1/2019 dated 25.09.2019 and Ext.P2 rectification deed bearing No.2642/1/2019 dated 31.10.2019 of the Sub Registrar Office, Karikode executed by the 3rd respondent father, the petitioner son became the absolute owner in possession of t