JUDGMENT : The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows : (a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to hold enquiry as provided under Section 83A(2) and 71(3) of the Registration Act in relation to Ext.P1 to P7 Sale Deeds and make recommendation to cancel the same to the first respondent on finding that Government land is included in Exts.P1 to P7 in violation of Section 71(3) of the Act, as requested in Exhibits P10 and P11; (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to cancel Exts.P1 to P7 upon the 2nd respondent filing report showing that in Exts.P1 to P7 Government land is included in violation of Section 71(3) of the Registration Act; and (c) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Dr. V.N. Sankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondents 5 to 14 will stand dispensed with. 3. The petitioner would state that contesting respondents 5 to 8 are holding 2 Acres & 39.53 cents of Government land (kayal puramboke) in their illegal and unauthorised possession under the guise of Exts.P-1 to P-7 registered sale deeds, in which Government lands are illegally included by describing the same as “virivu”, which according to the petitioners is in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act. That the actual extent of property covered by Exts.P-1 to P-9 is only 68.47 cents. But whereas contesting respondents 5 to 8 have the illegal possession of more than 2 acres & 39.53 cents of Government land (kayal puramboke), apart from the abovesaid 68.47 cents. Further that, contesting respondents are taking steps to illegally reclaim the kayal puramboke etc. 4. That the actual extent of property covered by Exts.P-1 to P-9 is only 68.47 cents. But whereas contesting respondents 5 to 8 have the illegal possession of more than 2 acres & 39.53 cents of Government land (kayal puramboke), apart from the abovesaid 68.47 cents. Further that, contesting respondents are taking steps to illegally reclaim the kayal puramboke etc. 4. The petitioners would further state that they have submitted Ext.P-10 representation dated 01.09.2018 to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Alappuzha, with copy to the 1st respondent (Inspector General of Registration), requesting to hold enquiry under Sec.83A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and for cancellation of Exts.P-1 to P-7 registered sale deeds executed in favour of contesting respondents 5 to 8 etc., by invoking the provisions contained in Sec.83A(2) & (3) of the Registration Act. The petitioners would further contend that the registration of the impugned sale deeds as per Exts.P-1 to P-7 are in contravention of Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act, in as much as the sale deeds also involve Government kayal puramboke land etc. It is further pointed out that contesting respondents 9 to 14 are the persons from whom contesting respondents 5 to 8 had purchased the properties as per Exts.P-5 to P-7 registered sale deeds. 5. This Court had queried to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to whether the actual area of land conveyed by Exts.P-1 to P-7 is only 68.47 cents and whether petitioners will get any title deed in respect of the “virivu area” merely because of the recital of those land areas as “virivu” in Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds and also whether stamp duty has been paid for Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds only for 68.47 cents or for the larger extent of land inclusive of the “virivu area”. To this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions that actual land area conveyed as per the schedules of Exts.P-1 to P-7 is only 68.47 cents and that stamp duty has been paid only in respect of 68.47 cents and not for the entire extent of land inclusive of the “virivu area” coming to 2 Acres and 39.53 cents etc. If that be so, merely because Exs.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds would recite not only about 68.47 cents of land but also about the “virivu”, will not by itself confer any title on such “virivu” areas. This all the more so, since even according to the petitioners the stamp duty is paid only for the 68.47 cents of land, for which the title has been conveyed. Eventhough there is mention of “virivu” in the description in the sale deed, the same is not shown in the schedules of the deeds and even whether the actual extent of the land area of such “virivu” area will come to 2 acres & 39.5 cents as alleged by the petitioner, cannot be seen from the deeds. The actual extent of the “virivu”/additional land is not stated even in the descriptions in the deeds. 6. Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Sec.83A and sub-section (3) of Sec.71 of the Registration Act, which have been introduced as per Act 31 of 2013 (w.e.f. 13.09.2013), provides as follows : “83A. Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases.- XXX XXX XXX (2) If on an enquiry conducted by the District Collector suo motu or on the basis of a complaint received by him, it is found that any Government land or land owned by a public sector undertaking, has been transferred on the strength of a document which is got registered without following the procedure prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 71, the District Collector may make recommendation to the Inspector General of Registration to cancel the registration of such document. (3) On receipt of such recommendation from the District Collector, the Inspector General of Registration shall have the authority to cancel the registration of such document after following such procedure as may be prescribed.” “71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.- (1) xxx xxx XXXX XXXX XXX (3) No registering officer shall accept for registration any document involving transfer of property including contract for sale of immovable property belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala or public sector undertakings operating in the State or local self Government institutions unless it is accompanied by a no objection certificate issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf.” 7. It has been held by the Apex Court in various catena of decisions as in Satya Pal Anand Vs. It has been held by the Apex Court in various catena of decisions as in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others [ (2016) 10 SCC 767 ], that once a document is registered, it is not open to the registering officer to cancel that registration even if the attention is invited to some irregularity during the registration of the document and the aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document only before the competent civil court etc. However, the legislature has carved out an exception to the abovesaid common law position by engrafting the provisions contained in sub-section (2) & (3) of Sec.83A, by empowering the competent authorities for cancelling the sale deeds, subject to the fulfillment of the strict jurisdictional parameters envisaged therein. Therefore, the powers conferred under Sec.83A (2) & (3) being a drastic exception to the common law position, has to be construed strictly. 8. As per Sec.71(3) of the Registration Act, no registering officer shall accept for registration any document involving transfer of property including contract for sale of immovable property belonging to or vested in the Government of Kerala etc., unless it is accompanied by a no objection certificate issued by an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf. 9. Further, sub-section (2) of Sec.83A provides that if on an enquiry conducted by the District Collector suo motu or on the basis of a complaint received by him, it is found that any Government land etc., has been transferred on the strength of a document which is got registered without following the procedure prescribed in Section 71(3), the District Collector may make recommendation to the Inspector General of Registration to cancel the registration of such document. 10. Sub-section (3) of Sec.83A further provides that on receipt of such recommendation from the District Collector, as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Sec.83A, then the Inspector General of Registration shall have the authority to cancel the registration of such document after following such procedure as may be prescribed. 11. In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, the contesting respondents 5 to 8 have title only for 68.47 cents, in as much as the previous owners also had title only for that extent to convey the property covered by the said title. 11. In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, the contesting respondents 5 to 8 have title only for 68.47 cents, in as much as the previous owners also had title only for that extent to convey the property covered by the said title. Even as per the case of the petitioners, the stamp duty has been paid for registration of Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds only for the extent of land coming to 68.47 cents and not for the alleged additional 2 Acres and 39.53 cents, which according to the petitioners is allegedly Government Kayal puramboke land which has been styled as “virivu”. The “virivu” areas are not included in the schedules to the deeds and are only mentioned in the description in the deeds, without even mentioning its actual extent. Description of “virivu”/additional land ordinarily denotes additional lands in actual lawful and unquestioned possession, over and above the actual land area for which there is title and ordinarily would be only a marginal area over and above the title area. If as a matter of fact, the land area styled as “virivu” is obtained due to illegal possession and ecroachment into Government property/Government puramboke property, etc., then merely it is described in the registered deed as “virivu” cannot legalise such unlawful possession or confer title and the Governmental authority/public authority concerned can remove such illegal encroachment by involving powers under Kerala Conservancy Act or such other applicable laws. On the other hand, if as a matter of fact, if such additional land area which is on the basis of encroachment into Government property and attempted to be conveyed by including it in the schedule of the conveyed property without obtaining NOC under Sec.71(3) and after paying stamp duty thereon, etc., then the situation would have been different and invocation of the powers under Sec.83A(2) & (3) could have been considered. In the light of the factual aspects admitted by the petitioners, it cannot be said that conveyance of 68.47 cents of property as per Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds would amount to conveyance of Government land as envisaged in Sec.71(3) and Sec.83A of the Registration Act, merely on account of “virivu” land, if it is secured by illegal encroachment into Government property/public property. Therefore, the procedure envisaged in Sec.71(3) and Sec.83A (2) & (3) of the Registration Act will not come into play in the facts of this case. 12. It is also the admitted by the petitioner that the schedules of the properties covered by Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds would only include a total extent of 68.47 cents and not the “virivu”, even though, the “virivu land” has been recited in the description in the sale deed. The actual extent of the “virivu” is not even mentioned in the deeds. The exception to the common law position as per the above statutory provisions is to be construed strictly and the remedy in such cases would be to initiate other appropriate proceedings like under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or such other appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. 13. So if as a matter of fact, the allegation of the petitioner that the said “virivu land” mentioned in Exts.P-1 to P-7 sale deeds are Government land (Kayal Puramboke land) in illegal possession is correct, then merely because such “virivu lands” are also mentioned in the recitals of the sale deeds, will not by itself preclude the competent authorities under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder from taking necessary steps in case such property has been encroached and also for consequential action for eviction, as envisaged in the said Act and the Rules. 14. In the light of these aspects, it is not within the jurisdictional competence of respondents 2 & 1 to consider taking action under Sec.83A (2) & (3) of the Registration Act in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is for the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before the competent authority under the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder or such other appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law, for dealing with such alleged encroachments and eviction etc. 15. Accordingly, it is for the petitioners to approach the competent authorities under the Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder, for redressal of their grievances, in case, they have any complaint that respondents 5 to 8 have illegally encroached into the Government Kayal Puramboke land. With these observations and directions and with the above said liberty, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.