IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 38431 of 2018 PETITIONER/S:

RAMESH KUMAR T.

AGED 44 YEARS S/O.P.M.PRABHAKARAN, CHANDRAPRABHA, MAYANNUR.P.O-679 105.

BY ADVS.

SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SHRI.SHANIL P.C.

SMT.K.VIDYA SMT.SREELEKSHMI SANALKUMAR SRI.VINODE V. LUKA RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

2 THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PAZHAYANOOR, THRISSUR - 680 587.

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KONDAZHI VILLAGE, PARAMEL PADI, KONDAZHI PO, THRISSUR - 679 106.

4 TAHSILDAR,THALAPPILLI TALUK, WADAKANCHERY PO, PIN - 679 105.

5 THE RDO, AYYANTHOLE, THRISHUR - 680 003.

6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.

7 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.

8 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CRIME DETACHMENT, THRISSUR CITY, THRISSUR - 680 003.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J -------------------------------------------

W.P.(C)No.38431 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

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

“i. Declare that since no provisions in the code of criminal procedure or any other law for the time being in force authorize, neither the Government Pleader nor the Investigating officer, have any power or authority to prevent a person, having possession, ownership and title over his property, from alienating the said property, merely on the basis of pendency of the criminal case/cases.

ii. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P7 and quash the same, by way of issuance of a Writ of Certiorari,as illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 or any other having jurisdiction over the Petitioner's property, to allow the petitioner to register the Deed of sale of his property mentioned in Exhibit P1 and P2, in accordance with law.”

3. Heard Sri. C.V. Manuvilsan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The petitioner claims to be in absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. Exts.P3 to P6 are the certificates, which, according to the petitioner, would show that there are no encumbrances in respect of the said properties of the petitioner. The property in Ext.P1 is comprised in Survey No.316, 332, 328, 327, 320, 851, 330 in Mayannur Village, Thalappilli Taluk, Thrissur District and the properties in Ext.P2 is in Survey No.1760/5 of Thrissur Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur Revenue District. The grievance of the petitioner is that although these properties have been registered in the petitioner's name and prompt payment of land tax has also been made and that there are no encumbrances, liabilities or attachments in respect of the above said properties,the 2^nd respondent Sub Registrar is refusing to register the sale deeds sought to be executed by the petitioner as per Ext.P7 memo on the ground that he has got strict instructions and directions from the competent Police authorities not to allow the petitioner to alienate any of his properties till the disposal of the criminal cases referred to therein. The petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P8 jdugment dated 3.11.2015 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.25234/2015. In respect of similar cases, wherein this Court has held that no provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force empowers the police authorities from restraining the right of a person to alienate his property, merely on the basis of pendency of criminal case etc. Similar view has also been rendered by this Court in the judgment in Kuriachan