SYNUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitioners are having various items of properties in Alathur Village, Palakkad District. The first petitioner had obtained 0.02.42 hectares of land in Sy. No. and 267/4 and 267/3, Block No. 28, as per a registered gift deed No. 2062/2000 of Sub Reg Office, Alathur executed by his brother. Ext. P1 is the copy of the same. Ext. P2 is the registered Jenmom Assignment Deed No. 2404/1997 by which his brother obtaine property from one Mani and Sundari. They obtained the property as per Assign Deed No. 1937/1977 executed on behalf of the Alathur Brahmananda Swamy Sivayogi Sidhasramam by its President. Ext. P3 shows that the first petitioner was paying tax. Ext. P4 is the copy of the location certificate. Ext. P5 is the copy of the possession certificate and Ext. P6 is the copy of the permission issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioners now want to assign their property. It is mentioned in the Writ Petition that National Land Records Modernisation Programme as contemplated under R. 3(vi) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 has been sought to be implemented as per Ext. P7 notification and Ext. P8 is the notification issued by the Government for implementing the same in certain villages including the villages covered by the two Sub Registrars Offices, viz., Alathur and Vadakkancherry. The said system envisages that as a pre condition it is mandatory for the assign obtain an extract of the Record of Right from the village concerned. The Reco Right is issued as per the data available in the software Revenue Land Info System (RELIS). According to the petitioners, there had been so-many mistakes and errors in the data contrary to the manual records. Even persons who are holding properties and are remitting tax regularly and have obtained possession certificates are denied the issuance of extract of Record of Right. Now the first petitioner is denied the right to transfer his property. The said right is protected by the Constitution as per the Transfer of Property Act. The Tahsildar, by Ext. P9 which was issued in an application filed by the first petitioner for Record of Right, took the view that the assignment in 1977 by the Sidhasramam is not valid. It is submitted that the Tahsildar has no power to go into the validity of a document and therefore the action is blatantly illegal. For preparing the Record of Right, he cannot go into the validity of the title. It is also the case of the petitioner except in Alathur and Vadakkancherry, Ext. P8 notification has not been implemented in any other villages.

(2.) The second petitioner is also denied the Record of Right in respect of his property. The third petitioner is a licenced document writer who has joined the Writ Petition to espouse the grievance raised by similarly placed persons as that of the first and second petitioners. It is submitted that because of the new system, there is almost a 50% drop in the registration of documents in both the Sub Registrars Offices.

(3.) It is submitted that the guidelines for online transfer as per Ext. P11 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The petitioners rely upon Ext. P12 to show that therein, it is stated that insistence on Record of Right and online transfer of registry need be only on properties where in the Transfer of Registry/Pokkuvaravu/Mutation can be effected. It will also show that the actions will have to be in tune with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules and Registration Rules. Therefore, it is contended that there cannot be any prejudgment on the documents proposed to be executed as now attempted by the Tahsildar by Ext. P9. The petitioners therefore seek to quash Exts. P9 and P11 and seek for a direction to register the documents which are otherwise in order, without insisting for production of Record of Right extract.