K VENUGOPALAN; SREEJA K R, W/O K VENUGOPALAN; JIJI M U Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION; DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (LICENSING); DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL); SUB REGISTRAR; SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 1 and 2 are licensed document writers and scribes. The third petitioner is a licensed scribe. By Ext.P12 order passed on 28.8.2009, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Licensing) Thiruvananthapuram suspended the licence issued to the petitioners for a period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed Ext.P13 appeal before the Inspector General of Registration. It is stated that though along with Ext.P13 appeal a petition praying for stay of operation of Ext.P12 was submitted, it was not received by the Inspector General of Registration on the ground that he cannot pass interim orders pending disposal of the appeal. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P12 order in the alternative the petitioners seek a direction to the Inspector General of Registration to consider Ext.P13 appeal and pass orders thereon expeditiously.

(2.) The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that action has been taken against the petitioners for correcting the description regarding the area in Item No.3 of the schedule to document No.129 of 2009 of Sub Registrar's Office, Mananthavady. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Book No.1 Volume 1114 containing the original of the document was made available for perusal. Today the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also made available the original of the registered instrument. Both these documents disclose that the area of the land described in Item No.3 of the schedule to document No.129 of 2009 is 0.835 ares which corresponds to 20.60 cents. The alleged correction is regarding the description of the area in cents. There is no correction in the statement of area in hectares.

(3.) On going through the filing sheet, I notice that though there are other corrections also, the said corrections have been attested by the registering authority. However the correction as regards area in cents has not been attested. Likewise in the original of the instrument also the said correction has not been attested by the vendor. Whether having regard to the description of the extent of land in hectares, the correction regarding the area in cents has any consequence or significance is primarily a matter for the Inspector General of Registration to decide. By Ext.P12, which is impugned in the appeal, the licences issued to the petitioners have been suspended for six months. Ext.P12 is dated 28.8.2009. Nearly two months have passed thereafter.