JOY M.A. Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Sub Registrar who refused to register a document presented for registration on a mistaken interpretation of the statutory provisions, which refusal was found to be erroneous by the superior authority, later refuse registration on the ground that the document was presented out of time? This is the question posed by Sri S. Renjith, the learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The property owned by the petitioner was acquired for the setting up of a pipeline by the Kerala Water Authority. As part of rehabilitation measures, property admeasuring 1.62 Ares situated within the limits of Thrikkakara Village was assigned to him as per Exhibit P1 Sale deed. In Exhibit P1, it is equivocally stated that the entire rights over the property stood transferred to the petitioner and that he is entitled to enjoy the same without any restrictions whatsoever, and that the entire rights of the vendor will stand divested in favour of the petitioner on the execution of the deed.

(3.) The petitioner wanted to assign the property and for that purpose, he executed Exhibit P2 Sale deed on 15.01.2021, paid Rs.1,63,296/- by way of Stamp Duty and presented the same for registration before the 1st respondent on 16.01.2021. The 1st respondent took the view that as the property originally belonged to the Kerala Water Authority, the petitioner is required to obtain a No- Objection certificate from the District Collector, who is the officer authorized under Section 71 (3) of the Registration Act, 1908. Exhibit P3 is the order dated 02.02.2021 refusing registration. As suggested by the 1st respondent, the petitioner approached the District Collector and filed Exhibit P4 request seeking the issuance of a NOC. The 2nd respondent obtained a report from the Executive Engineer, JNNURM Project, KWA and by Exhibit P6 order dated 26.04.2021 came to the conclusion that as per Exhibit P1, absolute rights has been transferred to the petitioner and hence there is no requirement for obtaining a NOC. The petitioner contends that a copy of Exhibit P6 order was not communicated to him. It was sent directly to the 1st respondent. Despite the receipt of Exhibit P6, the petitioner was not informed about the same by the 1st respondent. Later, in the first week of July, 2021, when the petitioner approached the 1st respondent to enquire about the status, the petitioner was informed that as the time period of four months as provided under Section 23 of the Registration Act had expired, the petitioner will have to pay fine for the delayed presentation. According to the petitioner, he cannot be asked to bear the fine under Rule 44 of the Registration Rules as there was no laches on his part. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs.