Court mandates incorporation of pending proceedings notice in sale deed to facilitate land registration.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims title to 20.094 cents of land in old survey no.2/6 and resurvey nos.105/9 and 105/17 of Chundel Village. The property originally belonged to Malayalam Plantations Limited. The petitioner purchased the same in the year 2009, as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. Now, the petitioner wants to sell the property to a third person, as per Ext.P4 sale agreement. However, the 2^nd respondent-Sub Registrar is refusing registration on the basis of Ext.P5, whereby the details of land to be surrendered in terms of the Land Reforms Act has been sought for by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Secretary, Land Board. The specific reason is that, the property comprised in old survey no.2/6 with an extent of 33.46 ares under the Kunnathidavaka Village has been included in Ext.P5.

2. This Court notice that Ext.P5 only signifies the details of all properties held by Harrisons Malayalam Limited, and the details are called for to take action under 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . That, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to prevent registration of the land. The issue in this regard is covered by judgments of this Court, produced at Exts.P7 P8 and P9. However, this Court is of the opinion that the purchaser should be put to notice about the proceedings initiated vide Ext.P5, so that he can take a conscious decision to proceed with the proposed purchase or not.

3. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the petitioner to incorporate a specific recital in the proposed sale deed about the pendency of Ext.P5 proceedings in respect of the subject property. The compliance of the above direction shall be ensured by the 2^nd respondent-Sub Registrar. Subject to the above condition, the Sub Registrar will cause the proposed sale deed to be registered in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the existence of Ext.P5 proceedings, upon the document being presented for registration.

4. A further grievance canvassed by the petitioner is as against the 3^rd respondent in his refusal to issue the revenue records for non-production of patta. This Court is of the opinion that, inasmuch as, the petitioner is in possession of the property without any dispute, the issuance of the revenue certificates need not be detained for want of patta.

5. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent also to issue revenue records to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 3^rd respondent, as also, the 2^nd respondent for compliance. The Government’s right to take proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5, as also, under the Land Conservancy Act, will stand reserved.

This Writ Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-