JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition restraining alienation or mortgage of the property imposed in Ext.P-1 sale-deed No. 1852/2005 dated 23.3.2005 of SRO, Alangad, executed in his favour, at the instance of respondents 1 to 4. The property was purchased by the petitioner based on a partial financial assistance given by the Government under a scheme formulated by the Government, for purchase of land for members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It is stated by the petitioner that the financial assistance given under the said Government scheme is much lesser than compared to the amount that had to be spent by the petitioner for purchase of the land and construction of a building. It is contended by the petitioner that the said condition imposed on the petitioner is illegal and null and void. It is the further case of the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from serous ailments and that for meeting the huge expenditure of the medical treatment, the petitioner was constrained to take loans from various financial institutions, as can be seen from Exts.P-3 to P-6. The petitioner would state that the petitioner is now facing with the situation that there is no other alternative, but to sell his land covered by Ext.P-1 sale-deed in order to pay off the loan and to meet the further expenses for the treatment of his wife. But that the respondents, more particularly R-5 Sub Registrar, SRO, Alangad, are not permitting the petitioner to deal with the property for his beneficial use, in view of the said restriction in the document. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “(a) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or declaration holding that the condition restraining alienation or mortgage of the property covered under Exhibit P-1 is null and void or in the alternative declare that petitioner is having every right to alienate or mortgage the property covered under Exhibit P-1 document. (b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to register the sale-deed or mortgage deed executed by the petitioner in favour of any person for valuable consideration without taking into account of the condition restraining alienation or mortgage in respect of the property covered under Exhibit P-1 document. (c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with cost for the ends of justice.” 2. Heard Sri. K.V. Jayadeep Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents R-1, R-2, R-5 and R-6. As no specific relief is sought as against R-3 and R-4, notice to those parties party will stand dispensed with. 3. The petitioner places reliance on Ext.P-7 judgment dated 31.3.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 19579/2014 rendered by this Court in similar circumstances. The said judgment reads as follows: “1. The petitioner purchased a property by Ext.P1 with aid provided under Peoples Planning Programme. The purchase was on 02.02.2000. 2. In the sale-deed it is mentioned that property is not alienable. The petitioner submitted that he is entitled to alienate the property, notwithstanding such stipulation in the deed. According to the petitioner, the stipulation as above is null and void and therefore, it has no legal effect. 3. It is to be noted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, notwithstanding any such stipulation in Ext.P1, the 4th respondent shall honour any document executed by the petitioner conveying her right in such property in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above.” 4. The respondents have no case that the impugned restriction, which finds a place in Ext.P-1 sale-deed is on the basis of any statutory provisions governing the field. The provisions contained in the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975, has no application to the instant case, inasmuch as the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. The provisions contained in the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975, has no application to the instant case, inasmuch as the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. Rule 8(1A) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, framed under the enabling provisions contained in Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) thereof, unoccupied lands assigned on registry shall be heritable, but not alienable of a period of 12 years from the date of the assignment on registry. The said provision is not applicable in the instant case, inasmuch as no land has been assigned to the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is not in dispute that, at the time of the purchase of the property as per Ext.P-1 sale-deed dated 23.3.2005, Rule 8(1A) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules provided that the property shall not transferable for a period of 3 years. It is thereafter that the said Rule was amended with effect from 2009, whereby the said period was enhanced to 25 years and later, by a subsequent amendment in the year 2017, the said period has been again reduced to 12 years. Therefore, even if it is assumed for argument sake that the land assignment process is involved in the instant case, the restrictive period was only for 3 years at the relevant time, which has also expired as early as on 23.3.2008. 5. The respondents do not have any case that the instant impugned restriction has been incorporated on the basis of any statutory provisions, which govern the field. On the other hand, it is common ground that the impugned restriction is on the basis of an executive order issued by the State Government providing financial assistance to the weaker sections of the society like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for enabling them to purchase property for residential purpose, etc. On the other hand, it is common ground that the impugned restriction is on the basis of an executive order issued by the State Government providing financial assistance to the weaker sections of the society like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for enabling them to purchase property for residential purpose, etc. Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, mandates that where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him, etc. In the instant case, the restriction imposed in the abovesaid executive order is that the land so purchased by a person like the petitioner under the said scheme cannot be alienated. Such a condition is not justified in law. This Court has already held in Ext.P-7 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 19579/2014 that notwithstanding any such stipulation in the sale-deed, the sub registrar is under the statutorily obligation to honour any document executed by the petitioner therein conveying the petitioner's right in such property in accordance with law. Therefore, it is only to be held that the matter requires legal interdiction. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, notwithstanding any such stipulation as in Ext.P-1 sale-deed, the 5th respondent SRO, Alangad, will be under the statutory obligation to register any document executed by the petitioner conveying his right, etc. in accordance with law, if such deed is otherwise in order. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the said restriction has been imposed as per the executive order as contained in the sale-deed, is only to ensure that the weaker sections of the society like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are not induced to sell of their properties at very low value to other persons and also to ensure that they are able to enjoy their residential property so that they will not clamour with the demand for getting such financial assistance again, after selling off their property. Sri. Sri. K.V. Jayadeep Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of the instructions of his party submits that in case the petitioner sells his property covered by Ext.P-1, then he will not raise any claim against the respondents for considering him for grant of any such financial assistance in future for purchasing other properties, in terms of the scheme. The said undertaking made on behalf of the petitioner is recorded. Accordingly, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to present the deed conveying his right over the property covered by Ext.P-1 before the 5th respondent SRO, Alangad, for registration and if so presented, then the 5th respondent shall register such document, if the said deed is otherwise in order. 7. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.