No additional approvals are necessary for the sale of land exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as reaffirmed by previous court decisions.

J U D G M E N T

The first petitioner Company says that they had acquired 54.0653 hectares of land, along with other properties, in Nilambur Village, as per document No.2443/1950 of SRO, Vandoor.. They say that these properties were developed into a rubber plantation and that it was subsequently granted exemption under the provisions of Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act) by the State Land Board vide order dated 27.04.1999. They say that they have been remitting taxes on the property and has produced Exhibit P1 land tax receipt in substantiation.

2. The first petitioner says that its operations are now suffering loss and consequently that they have been constrained to sell an extent of 8.90 ares in favour of the second petitioner, leading to Exhibit P2 sale deed being executed. The petitioners allege that, however, when they presented the same before the fourth respondent – Sub Registrar, he refused to register it and issued Exhibit P3 communication demanding that they produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Authorities, clarifying whether the land in question is enjoying exemption under the KLR Act.

3. The petitioners say that both Exhibit P4 and the refusal of the fourth respondent to register Exhibit P2 sale deed is illegal and unlawful and further that the demand made through Exhibit P3 is unnecessary, since if the land is not exempted under the provisions of Section 81 of the KLR Act, then the first petitioner would not have any legal impediment to sell the same. They further explain that the reason stated in Exhibit P3 for requiring as afore is that Exhibit P2 sale deed has been executed after changing the records of the plantation and that there is a circular of the District Collector preventing the alteration of the exempted land. They say that, consequently, they preferred Exhibit P4 appeal, against Exhibit P3 order, under Section 72 of the Registration Act , before the third respondent – District Registrar, Malappuram, but that he refused to accept the same and issued Exhibit P5 saying that the matter does not come under the , because the refusal recorded in Exhibit P3 is on account of the fact that a rubber plantation cannot be transferred in tranches.

4. The petitioners assert that the reasons recorded in Exhibit P3 proceedings of the fourth respondent are untenable in law and in any event of the matter, similar issues have already been considered by this court and concluded through Exhibit P6 judgment.

5. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Exhibit P3 be quashed and consequently that fourth respondent be directed to register the sale deed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. I have heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Hanil Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

7. The learned Special Government pleader, in response, submitted that all that the petitioners have been directed, through Exhibit P3, by the fourth respondent, is to clarify whether the property covered by Exhibit P2 enjoys the exemption under Section 81 of the KLR Act. He submitted that this was necessitated because the said authority suspects that the attempt of the petitioners is to fragment the rubber plantation which enjoys exemption under the KLR Act. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

8. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader because, interestingly, both sides admit that such aspects have already been decided by this Court in Exhibit P6 judgment. When I examine Exhibit P6, it is indubitable that a learned Judge of this court has, in the case of another plantation by name Kerala Estate Plantations , found that there is no embargo in sale of such property and that at the best, proceedings can be initiated only if the sold property is converted contrary to law. On such conclusion, the learned Judge permitted registration of the sale deed