BIJU M.A. Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the refusal to register the original of Ext. P1 document by the respondent referring to the difference in the 'nature' of the land concerned as described in the document sought to be registered, showing it as a reclaimed land; whereas in the Basic Register of the Sub Registry, wherein the land comprised in Re - survey Nos. 165/11/2/2 & 165/9/2/2 and 1.61 ares in Re - sy. No. 165/2/3, 165/10/3, 165/9/4/1 has been shown as 'Nilam'. The reason for refusal has been put into writing and conveyed to petitioner on 14/02/2013 vide Ext. P5.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that, the property is actually lying as 'reclaimed land' and the petitioner is enjoying the same with all the improvements thereon, including a building situated in the property and this in turn has been sought to be conveyed as per Ext. P1. It is stated that, the nature of the property can never be a reason for refusing the registration, more so, in view of the mandate under S.71 of the Registration Act, read with R.190/191 of the Rules there under.

(3.) The stand taken by the respondents is sought to be sustained by the learned Government Pleader, pointing out that, the property is actually a 'Nilam' as discernible from Ext. P2 tax receipt Bearing No. 16/3568 dated 25/01/2013 produced by the petitioner himself. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, in Ext. P1 document itself, it is stated in paragraph '4' and elsewhere, that the property is lying as a 'reclaimed land'. Reliance is also sought to be placed on R.36 and R.37 of the Registration Rules, Kerala, contending that, it is a valid reason for refusing the registration. R.36 and R.37 are extracted below: