AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P5 and to declare that the 1st respondent has no legal authority to insist on getting a 'No
Objection Certificate' from the 2nd respondent for registering the sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P1.
The petitioner purchased 31.50 cents of land in the year 2007 as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The land was situated in Sy. Nos. 620, 621 and 1063 of
Varantharappilly Village. In the year 2017, the petitioner proposed to sell 18.55 cents of land out of the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed.
Accordingly, Ext.P3 agreement for sale was executed on 27.09.2017. When the petitioner approached the Sub Registrar for registering the sale deed,
the Sub Registrar required that a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department is required.
The petitioner in turn approached the Divisional Forest Officer. The Divisional Forest Officer issued Ext.P5 letter declining grant of NOC to the
petitioner. Ext.P5 was issued on the ground that the petitioner has illegally constructed a residential building in forest land at Vellikulangara Range,
Karikulam Desom producing fake documents. It is aggrieved by the said Ext.P5, the petitioner has approached this Court.
The Special Government Pleader (Forests) filed statement and additional statement controverting the contentions of the petitioner in the writ
petition. The statement filed by the respondents alleged that fraud was committed by the petitioner and the petitioner had used documents of lands in
Sy. Nos. 620, 621 and 1063 to construct a house and to avail other facilities in the leased land of Harrison Malayalam Limited. The additional
statement further proceed to state that after encroaching into land, the petitioner has sought for inclusion of her name in the list of beneficiaries for
construction of building under the 'Indira Awaas Yojana'.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader.
The specific case of the petitioner is that the encroachment alleged is not in the land covered by Ext.P1 or Ext.P3 sale deeds. On the basis of
allegation of encroachment of forest lands in some other area, the petitioner cannot be declined NOC to sell land legally purchased by her. Going
through the pleadings available in the writ petition, it is evidenced that the petitioner has purchased 31.50 cents of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed. What
is sought to be transferred by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 is 18.55 cents of land purchased as per Exts.P1. There is no material on record to show that
the petitioner has made any encroachment in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P3. Annexure R2(a) document produced by the
respondent would also establish this fact. In Annexure R2(a), the Divisional Forest Officer has specifically stated that the petitioner is in possession of
lands in Sy. Nos. 620, 621 and 1063.
Going by the pleadings and the documents, it is clear that there is no allegation of encroachment by the petitioner in respect of the land covered by
Exts.P1 and P3. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief in this writ petition.
Ext.P5 is therefore quashed. Â There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue NOC for the proposed sale of land by the petitioner pursuant
to Exts.P1 and P3 in Sy. Nos. 620 and 621 of Varantharappilly Village. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue NOC within a period of two weeks
positively.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.