A refusal by a Sub Registrar to register a document can be challenged only through an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, not by writ petition.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a senior citizen and in possession of properties covered by Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, subject property is planted with rubber trees and the property is having rubber board registration No. 1772/1956 of Pathanamthitta. The land board initiated ceiling case against the petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act (KLR) as PLB-82/73/PTA and an extent of 35 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 777/1/B.6 of Chittackal Village was surrendered by the petitioner as excess land as per the determination of the land board on 27.7.1974, in the above case. According to the petitioner, petitioner is not in possession of excess land and the property covered by Ext.P1 is exempted from calculating excess land, as it is a rubber plantation. Petitioner wanted to transfer the above said property in favour of a company formed by him for conducting operation and third respondent refused to register the document holding that the property concerned is in respect of excess land. Third respondent has passed Ex.P4 order expressing the inability by the third respondent to register the document since already a directive is issued by the Chairman of the land board on 31.5.2016, not to register the documents situate in Resurvey Nos.575/1/3/6/2 and 581/1/5/7. It is thus challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior Government Pleader.

2. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the property is not included in the excess land, and therefore, the Sub registrar ought to have registered the document. In my considered opinion, going by the impugned order, factual aspects are to be unearthed in order to arrive at a conclusion and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the remedy, especially due to the fact, statutory authority is available under law. Therefore, when a Sub Registrar refuses to register a document, except on the ground of denial of execution, statutory remedy is available under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, by which an appeal is maintainable to the District Registrar. This exactly is the position projected by the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, in my considered opinion, petitioner has to prefer an appeal, accordingly, before the District Registrar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention the judgment rendered by this Court in Devassia R.V. And another v. Sub Registrar, Idukki and Others [2015(1)KLT 825]. On a perusal of the said judgment rendered by this Court, I do not find that the learned Single Judge had occasion to consider whether an appeal is maintainable when a Sub registrar refuses to register the document. In my considered opinion, the facts and circumstances are entirely different in the said writ petition. Accordingly, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Registrar of the concerned jurisdiction, this writ petition can be given a quietus.

5. However, I find that 30 days time limit is prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 72 to prefer an appeal. Apparently, this writ petition was pending before this Court and if the time limit prescribed is already over, I make it clear, if the petitioner makes an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be treated as an appeal within the time permitted under law, and pass orders thereon at the earliest, in accordance with law. Petitioner will be at liberty to canvass any proposition of law rendered by this Court in the subject matter.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.