(C.R)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 17443 of 2017 PETITIONER: JOBY MATHEW AGED 37, S/O. MATHEW,URUMBITHADATHIL HOUSE,MURIYAD P.O, MURIYAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DT. PIN - 680 125.

BY ADVS.

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.

SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR - 680 003.

3 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA - 680

121.

4 VILLAGE OFFICER MURIYAD - 680 683. 5 SUB REGISTRAR KALLETTUMKARA, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DT.

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT. PLEADER.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS,J.

===========================

W.P.(C)No.17443 of 2017 ===========================

Dated this the 16^th day of November,2018

J U D G M E N T

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

“i) “To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to transfer the registry in the name of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 registered sale deed within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

ii) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri.Saijo Hassan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt.

Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner had approached the 4^th respondent Village Officer, seeking transfer of registry in respect of the property concerned in his name on the basis of Ext.P1 registered sale deed dated 07.05.2015, of SRO Kallettumkara. The petitioner had purchased the said property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed from one Smt.Sharadha. The matter was referred to 3^rd respondent Additional Tahsildar, who has taken the objection that the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 07.05.2015 has been made in violation of the specific conditions in Ext.P3 patta, wherein it is stipulated that the land is not alienable. It appears that the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed was the one covered by Ext.P3 patta issued to the original pattadhar concerned, and later, the petitioner had obtained the said property as per the above said sale deed.

4. The 3^rd respondent Additional Tahsildar, has filed statement dated 23.09.2017 in the matter. It is stated that the land was formally assigned to Smt.Sharadha, W/O.Thooyath Unnikrishnan as per patta No.C4-16024/83 dated 26.10.83 (Ext.P-3), issued by the Tahsildar Mukundapuram on the condition that the land shall not be alienated. Ext.P3 is the copy of the said patta, wherein, apart from the five printed conditions appended thereunder, there is the 6^th additional condition made by written endorsement which reads as follows.

"

സല(cid:3) ക(cid:6)മ(cid:8)റ(cid:3) ച(cid:11)യ(cid:8)ൻ അധ(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:8)രമ(cid:16)ല"(cid:18)

Therefore, it is contended that the transfer of property made in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 is against the specific conditions imposed in the patta as per Ext.P3, and therefore, the request for transfer of registry cannot be entertained, etc.

5. In the counter statement filed counter statement dated

23.9.2017, filed by the 3^rd respondent the impugned action is sought to be justified on the basis of the averments and contentions raised in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said counter statement, which read as follows:

“3. It is submitted that earlier as per the S.8(1) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, “Lands granted or registry shall be heritable and alienable” and as per 8(IA) of Kerala Land Assignment Act “ Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (1), unoccupied lands assigned on registry shall not be alienable for a period of th