Indefinite prohibition on land transactions violates constitutional rights and cannot persist under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2026 Petitioners claim title to 2 acres and 82.5 cents of land in Karuvarakundu Village, Malappuram District. The property is comprised in re-survey no.17/2-12. Petitioners claim title under Ext.P1 document, whereas, Ext.P2 and P3 are the prior deeds. Petitioners are in need of selling the property to a third person. However, when they made enquiries, they were informed by the Registrar that on account of Ext.P7 Order issued by the District Collector dated 06.01.1995, transactions in the various survey numbers, including that of the petitioners, has been prohibited. The said Order is issued invoking the power under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the basis of Ext.P7 Order of the year 1995, transactions cannot be interdicted, forever. It was also pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that the subject property is involved in any ceiling proceedings so far.

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the survey number of the petitioners' property is referred to in Ext.P7. However, it is not known whether the subject property is specifically part of any ceiling proceedings pending against Dr.V.V.Antony.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court notice that Ext.P6 communication issued by the Village Officer to the Sub Registrar and the consequent interdiction on the transaction cannot be sustained in law. Primarily, it has to be noticed that Ext.P7 communication issued by the District Collector is dated 06.01.1995 and an interdiction based on such a document cannot govern the affairs in the year 2026. An Order under Section 120A prohibiting transactions cannot be permitted to be in operation for a considerable length of time, which will impinge on the constitutional rights of the parties under Article 300A. That apart, this Court notice that is liable to be invoked only when the proposed transaction relating to transfer of a land is intended to defeat the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . The above basic requirement is not seen reflected in Ext.P7. All what is seen stated in Ext.P7 is that the transactions will cause difficulties at the time of implementing the Orders of the Taluk Land Board, which indication will fall short of the requirements of of the . Moreover, there is no material to indicate that the very subject property, having an extent of 2.82.5 acres, is included in the ceiling proceedings initiated against Dr.V.V.Antony. Nor is there any data available with respect to the status of the ceiling proceedings claimed to have been initiated against the said person.

5. In the circumstances, the 3^rd respondent/Sub Registrar will stand directed to register the document presented by the petitioner, provided it answers other requirements in terms of law. Needless to say that Exts.P6 or P7 cannot stand in the way of such registration. It is, however, clarified that, if the property in question is the subject matter of any ceiling proceedings, the transfer will take effect only subject to the result of such ceiling proceeding, which aspect will have to be incorporated by the petitioner in the proposed sale deed. The 3^rd respondent/Registrar will ensure a covenant to that effect in the proposed document sought to be registered.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition will stand disposed of.

Sd/-