JUDGMENT

The petitioners seek that the competent respondent be directed to issue them a Sketch with respect to the property in question under the “Torrance Scheme”, since it is situated in Angamaly, Kerala. They admit that the “janmam right” with respect to the property is yet to be declared in their favour, though they have moved an application for such purpose before the competent Tribunal, which is numbered as S.M.P.No.11 of 2019. They say that, in any event of the matter, this would be of no consequence because, through Ext.P13, the transfer of Registry of the property has already been effected in favour of their father, who died subsequently, thus making them its eligible owners.

2. The petitioners then explain that they have now executed a settlement deed with respect to the property and that same can be registered only if a Sketch under the “Torrance Scheme” is received. They, therefore, pray that competent respondent be directed to favour them with such a Sketch without any further delay.

3. In response to the afore submissions of Shri.K.V.Jayadeep Menon - learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, took a preliminary objection that a writ petition on this nature cannot be maintained by a person to seek a Sketch under the “Torrance Scheme” unless he or she is its owner. She submitted that petitioners, themselves admit that their “janmam right” over the property in their favour has not been yet declared by the competent Tribunal, no such application could be entertained by any of the respondents. After saying so, on the merits of the matter, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the question whether petitioners are entitled to Sketch under the “Torrance Scheme” will have to be evaluated and decided by the competent respondent and cannot be granted as a matter of right, particularly because there are issues relating to its title is still pending. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader on the afore lines the fact remains that, through Ext.P13, the Registry of the property has been transferred in favour of the petitioners’ father. True, this is only a fiscal step and not an attribute of ownership per se. However, if the suo motu proceedings afore mentioned is to end in favour of the petitioners, certainly they will be entitled to the ‘purchase certificate’ and to enjoy the property without interdiction thereafter.

5. However, since the suo motu proceedings have not been completed in spite of more than three years having been lapsed, the petitioners cannot be put to unnecessary prejudice and I am, certainly of the view that, taking note of Ext.P13 proceedings, whereby the transfer of Registry of the property has already been effected in favour of their deceased father, it will be justified for this Court to grant them relief, subject to the final proceedings before the Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition, adverting specifically to Ext.P13 and direct the 3rd respondent – Head Surveyor and Approving Authority to issue to the petitioners a Sketch under the “Torrance Scheme” with respect to the property in question; however, indicating therein that it is being issued subject to the final decision in S.M.P.No.11 of 2019. This shall be done by the 3rd respondent, after compliance of all other statutory requirements, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

On the afore sketch being issued to the petitioners, they will be at liberty to produce it before the competent Registering Authority who will then act upon its terms; however recording that it is being done subject to further proceedings in S.M.P.No.11 of 2019.

Needless to say, the afore two actions will depend upon the final decision of the Land Tribunal in S.M.P.No.11 of 2019 and should it end to the detriment of the