SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are transferees of portions of land owned by M/s Goldview Vyapar Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and having its head office at Kolkata, West Bengal. The 1st petitioner has purchased 3 hectares 64 Ares and 23 M2 of thottam land and the 2nd petitioner has purchased 1 hectares 1 Are and 17 M2 of land in Sy.No.39/1/1, Elappara Village, Peermedu Taluk, Idukki District.

(2.) Exts.P2 and P4 are the copies of the sale deeds. On 4/1/2022, the petitioners along with the seller submitted the sale deeds for registration before the 1st respondent. They remitted the registration fee as well as the stamp duty required for the registration. The 1st respondent returned the sale deeds stating that the registration cannot be effected as the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P6 order restraining sale of plantation land of shorter extents, invoking the power under Sec. 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act). Ext.P7 is the memo evidencing the return of Ext.P2 and P4, along with three other sale deeds produced by the seller. The writ petition has been filed in the above circumstances, praying to quash Ext.P6 to the extent it affects the registration of Exts.P2 and P4 documents and for a direction to the 1st respondent to register the original of Exts.P2 and P4.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner places reliance of Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, which was rendered in similar circumstances. This Court held that the respondents cannot interdict sale on the ground that the lands involved were exempted lands. Sri Jaffar Khan, Senior Government Pleader supports Ext.P6 order on the reason that under Sec. 81(4) of the KLR Act, only 5% of the plantation land can be permitted to be converted and sale of smaller extents of the land will affect the very purpose for which the exemption is granted for plantations under the KLR Act. He relies on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K.Jacob and Anr. v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority reported in [2018(4) KLT 913] and submits that prevention of fragmentation is also an intention behind the enactment. Specific reference was made to paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the judgment. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in One Earth One Life and others v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2019 (1) KLT 985] to submit that fragmentation of the estate has to be treated as a case of conversion of the plantation into some other category of land.