J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a property consisting of two plots measuring 10 cents each in R.S.No.112/11A3 which he has purchased from one Sri.P.D.Bineesh as per two separate sale deed Nos.671/1998 dated 20.03.1998 and 2302/1998 dated 28.09.1998. It is further averred that Sri.P.D.Bineesh was holding the said properties on absolute janmom rights and the properties in question were part of a larger extent of land originally held by Kerala Jesuit Society which were held by them as part of Vimala Estate. It is averred that the Kerala Jesuit Society is a religious and charitable society which was entitled for the benefit of Section 98A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The 1st respondent/State Government had issued Ext.P3 G.O.(MS) 411/91/RD dated 17.06.1991, unequivocally holding and declaring that the Kerala Jesuit Society is entitled to be treated as an institution of public nature engaged in religious and charitable work of a religious denomination in terms of of the KLR Act. It is also brought to notice that earlier the 2nd respondent/ Taluk Land Board, Kozhikode had also issued Ext.P2 proceedings dated 04.08.1982 dropping all further ceiling proceedings as against the Kerala Jesuit Society, in view of the confirmation of the benefit of of the KLR Act.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of the expenditure involved in connection with his daughter's proposed marriage, he had decided to sell the aforesaid properties and other properties belonging to his wife purchased from Sri.P.D. Dineesh. Document No.2064/2017 in respect of the petitioner's wife was presented for registration before the 2nd respondent/Sub Registrar, SRO-Balal, who had registered the same on 24.10.2017. The petitioner had presented the document pertaining to the sale of his properties for registration, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent/Sub Registrar on the ground that he requires verification of the Tahsildar as to whether the property covered by the document would come within the exempted category under Section 81(1)(c) of the KLR Act. The petitioner would submit that his enquires with the competent revenue officials had revealed that there is no such requirement, as is clear from the previous documents as well as from Ext.P2 proceedings of the Taluk Land Board as well as Ext.P3 Government Order dated 17.06.1991 of the State Government. The petitioner would therefore, contend that non-registration of Ext.P5 sale deed and the impugned rejection memo as per Ext.P6 has been issued by the 2nd respondent/SRO which is without authority and that his actions is therefore illegal and ultravires. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

“(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P7 memo.

(ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to register Ext.P6 document forthwith without insisting for the condition imposed in Ext.P7.

(iii) any other appropriate writ order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Heard Sri.Kodoth Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Renjith Tampan, learned Additional Advocate General instructed by Sri.C.P.Pradeep, Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the properties in question which were sold by the petitioner's wife and the properties covered by Ext.P6 sale deed executed by the petitioner were obtained earlier from one Sri.P.D. Dineesh, who in turn had obtained it from the Kerala Jesuit Society and the said property had formed part of the larger extent of the properties held by the Kerala Jesuit Society as part of 'Vimala Estate'.

5. Section 71 of the Registration Act 1908 deals with the reasons for refusal to register a document which reads as follows:

“Sec.71.