JUDGMENT : The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 prohibitory order dated 28.05.2018 issued by the 1st respondent District Collector, under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to withdraw the aforesaid prohibitory order against the petitioner's land having an extent of 33.24 Acres in Survey No.4 in Eruvessy Village in Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur District and communicate it to the 3rd respondent Sub-Registrar, Sreekandapuram and the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, Taliparamba; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to register documents relating to the sale of the petitioner's land having an extent of 33.24 Acres in Survey No.4 in Eruvessy Village in Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur District, as and when presented by him for registration. 2. On 09.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and sought time to get instructions. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The pleadings and materials on record would show that, the petitioner firm is holding land having an extent of 33.24 acres in Survey No.4 in Eruvessy Village in Taliparamba Taluk. The Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba, was directed by order No.LB/B3/9918/17 dated 23.12.2017 of the Secretary, State Land Board, to initiate suo moto action, under Section 87 of Kerala Land Reforms Act, against the partners of the petitioner firm, namely, M/s. K.C. James, K.C. Jimmy, K.C. Thomas, T.M.V. Shareefa and K.P. Ebrahim Haji, as they possessed land excess of the ceiling limit. The authorised officer of the Taluk Land Board conducted an enquiry and filed a report stating that the petitioner is holding land having an extent of 33.24 acres in Survey No. 4 of Eruvessy Village, which exceeds the ceiling limit, and that the petitioner has not filed returns under Section 87 of the Act. The authorised officer of the Taluk Land Board conducted an enquiry and filed a report stating that the petitioner is holding land having an extent of 33.24 acres in Survey No. 4 of Eruvessy Village, which exceeds the ceiling limit, and that the petitioner has not filed returns under Section 87 of the Act. Hence, draft statement prepared under Rule 10 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970, together with notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 were issued to the partners of the firm, on 10.08.2018, inviting objections to the draft statement. Despite service of notice, they failed to submit their objection. While proceedings were pending before the Taluk Land Board, a complaint was received from one Saji Mathew, Kanjirathunkal Charal P.O; pointing out that the petitioner is going to effect transfer of its land having an extent of 33.24 acres in Survey No.4 in Eruvessy Village. The Chairman, Taluk Land Board informed the matter to the 1st respondent District Collector, Kannur, vide Ext.P12 letter dated 03.02.2018, to issue prohibitory order under Section 120A of the Act, since the intention behind the land transaction appeared to be for defeating the ceiling provisions under the Act. Accordingly, the 1st respondent District Collector issued Ext.P13 prohibitory order dated 28.05.2018 to the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, Sreekandapuram, under Section 120A of the Act, in order to prevent transfer of the land. 6. Subsequent to Ext.P13 order, the partners of the firm filed objections, on 21.08.2019, to the draft statement. The authorised officer of the Taluk Land Board conducted site inspection and submitted enquiry report. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board by Ext.P14 order dated 26.02.2020, decided to exempt 33.24 acres of land in Survey No.4 in Eruvessy Village, under Section 81(1)(q) of the Act, on the ground that the entire extent is being used as a commercial site, and as such the petitioner is not liable to surrender any land as surplus to the Government. Accordingly, the Taluk Land Board dropped further action in the case. 7. The petitioner filed Ext.P15 representation dated 19.06.2020 before the 1st respondent District Collector, with a request to lift Ext.P13 prohibitory order issued under Section 120A of the Act. The petitioner has also made a request before the 3rd respondent Sub Registrar for registration of the document. Accordingly, the Taluk Land Board dropped further action in the case. 7. The petitioner filed Ext.P15 representation dated 19.06.2020 before the 1st respondent District Collector, with a request to lift Ext.P13 prohibitory order issued under Section 120A of the Act. The petitioner has also made a request before the 3rd respondent Sub Registrar for registration of the document. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P16 reply dated 10.07.2020, whereby the petitioner is informed that registration of the document is possible only after the lifting of prohibitory order by the District Collector. 8. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is contended that, while issuing Ext.P14 order, the Taluk Land Board has exceeded its jurisdiction and the said order is also against the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathew K. Jacob and another Vs. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [ 2018 (5) KHC 487 ]. The Taluk Land Board, Thaliparamba, submitted the entire case records to the State Land Board, to conduct further scrutiny. As per letter No.LB.B3/9520/2016, the State Land Board has proposed the Government to file revision before this Court, under Section 103 of the Act. A decision on Ext.P15 request made by the petitioner could be taken only after getting direction from the Land Board. Ext.P14 order passed by the Taluk Land Board has not attained finality, since Section 103 of the Act enables the Government to file revision before this Court on the ground that the Taluk Land Board has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. 9. The 1st respondent would point out that, while proceedings were pending before the Taluk Land Board, the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board received a complaint pointing out that the petitioner is going to effect transfer of its land. The Chairman, Taluk Land Board, informed the matter to the 1st respondent to issue prohibitory order under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, since the intention behind the land transaction appeared to be for defeating the ceiling provisions under the Act. Accordingly, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P13 prohibitory order to the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, under Section 120A of the Act, in order to prevent transfer of the land. The Secretary, State Land Board, vide letter No.LBB3-9520/2016 dated 05.10.2020, has requested the Advocate General to file a revision against Ext.P14 order of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. Accordingly, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P13 prohibitory order to the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, under Section 120A of the Act, in order to prevent transfer of the land. The Secretary, State Land Board, vide letter No.LBB3-9520/2016 dated 05.10.2020, has requested the Advocate General to file a revision against Ext.P14 order of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. The Government, vide letter No. N1/158/2020 Rev. dated 05.10.2020, has informed the office of the Advocate General that the State Land Board and the 1st respondent District Collector are directed to give necessary instructions to the Advocate General to challenge Ext.P14 order. In the light of the stand taken by the Government and the State Land Board, steps have already been taken to file a revision before this Court against Ext.P14 order. 10. The fact that, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board, the petitioner attempted to transfer the land is not in serious dispute. Though Ext.P12 prohibitory order is one dated 28.05.2018, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge that order till the filing of this writ petition, which is one filed on 08.09.2020. Going by the averments in paragraph 32 of the writ petition, in order to meet huge financial commitments, the petitioner had already entered into an agreement with a buyer and accepted part sale consideration. The buyer may back out from the commitment on account of non-registration and may demand return of advance with interest, which would place the petitioner in considerable loss. 11. Section 101 of the Act deals with powers of the Land Board and the Land Tribunal. As per sub-section (4) of Section 101, if any question arises as to whether any land is exempted under Section 81, the question shall be decided by the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be in such manner and having regard to such matters as may be prescribed, and the decision of the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board shall be final. Section 103 of the Act deals with revision by High Court. Section 103 of the Act deals with revision by High Court. As per sub-section (1) of Section 103, any person aggrieved by any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal or; any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act or; any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act, may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law. 12. Section 120A of the Act provides that registering officer not to register in certain cases. As per Section 120A, which starts with a non-obstante clause, notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, where the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf informs the registering officer in writing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any document relating to transfer of land which may be presented before him for registration is intended to defeat the provisions of this Act, such registering officer shall not register such document until the District Collector or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, informs the registering officer that the transfer is not intended to defeat the provisions of this Act. 13. In Devassia R.V. and another v. Sub Registrar, Idukki and others [ 2015 (1) KHC 805 ], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed either by the owner of the exempted land or by the purchaser of the land from exempted land owners under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, when the Revenue Officials refused to effect mutation in respect of the land alleging violation of the said Act. In some cases, the registering authority insisted for no-objection certificate for the purpose of registration of the document involving exempted land. Before this Court, it was contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, with reference to Section 87 and Section 120A of the Act, that the authorities have sufficient power to take appropriate action to prevent fragmentation and conversion of the land to defeat the very objectives of the Act. 14. Before this Court, it was contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, with reference to Section 87 and Section 120A of the Act, that the authorities have sufficient power to take appropriate action to prevent fragmentation and conversion of the land to defeat the very objectives of the Act. 14. In Devassia R.V. this Court noticed that, Explanation (I) to sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act clearly indicates that, once land which is exempted loses its character which qualifies for exemption, such land shall be deemed as a land acquired after the date notified under Section 83 of the Act. Therefore, any land as a whole or in part, which is converted into any other class of land, which is not specified for exemption, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under Section 83 of the Act. This provision abundantly makes it clear that exempted land once it is converted would be reckoned for calculating total ceiling area of the person who held the land as on 01.01.1970. 15. In Devassia R.V. this Court noticed that, on promulgation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the entire landed property in the State is subjected to State control as envisaged under the provisions of the said Act. No piece of the land escapes the clutches of the Act including exempted land for ceiling purposes. The ceiling proceedings is a continuing proceedings and can be reopened in any of the circumstances, if so warranted, as contemplated under Section 87 of the Act. Exemption granted from ceiling is the qualification to use the land in a particular manner, which means a burden is imposed on the land. The moment the qualification for exemption is vanished by conversion of the land, the protection from ceiling will also be extinguished to bring the land within the fold of the ceiling area. The exemption is in the nature of a burden on the land to use the land for the purpose for which exemption is granted. The eminent domain power of the State can be exercised for acquiring land without consent and also to regulate the use of land in public interest. The eminent domain is power inherent in any Sovereign State. This burden would bind the holder of the land as on 01.01.1970 and the successor-in-interest. The eminent domain power of the State can be exercised for acquiring land without consent and also to regulate the use of land in public interest. The eminent domain is power inherent in any Sovereign State. This burden would bind the holder of the land as on 01.01.1970 and the successor-in-interest. The Division Bench of this Court in State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and another v. State of Kerala and others [ILR 2009 (3) Ker. 695] held that exemption granted under Section 81(1)(a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is for the land and would continue to operate irrespective of change of ownership of the exempted land and the transferee would have to use the land for the purpose for which exemption is granted. 16. In Devassia R.V. this Court noticed that, the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act do not place any embargo on transfer. The transfer of registry is for fiscal purposes. The power of the competent authority to reopen the ceiling proceedings to include the land exempted for the purpose of ceiling is not lost on account of effecting mutation. Therefore, the Revenue Officials cannot refuse to effect mutation of the property purchased by the transferee. 17. In Devassia R.V., the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, in view of the provision of the Tea Act, 1953 and Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the registering authority can refuse to register the land which is subject matter of exemption without no-objection certificate. This Court found no provisions in the Tea Act, 1953 to restrict the right of alienation. This Court noticed that, Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act enables the registering authority to refuse to register the document based on the information provided by the competent authority of the Government on the ground that registration would defeat the provisions of the said Act. Relying on the said provision, the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader was that the registering authority, therefore, is justified in refusing to register the document involving exempted land without no-objection certificate from the District Collector or from the competent authority. This Court held that Section 120A of the Act is an enabling provision. It is not a pre-requisite for registration of any document. This Court held that Section 120A of the Act is an enabling provision. It is not a pre-requisite for registration of any document. The District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government has to satisfy that any particular land is being transferred in order to defeat the provisions of the Act. Therefore, satisfaction has to be done having regard to subject of each transfer. On the facts of the cases on hand, this Court noticed that, there is no record before this Court to show that in any of the writ petitions a decision has been taken by the District Collector or by the authorised officer under the Government that the particular transaction intends to defeat the provisions of the Act. As afore-noted, there is no embargo in transferring whole or part of the exempted land. 18. A reading of the provisions under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act make it explicitly clear that, in case the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf has reasonable grounds to believe that any document relating to transfer of land which may be presented before a registering officer is intended to defeat the provisions of the said Act, he may inform such registering officer not to register such document until the District Collector or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, informs the registering officer that the transfer is not intended to defeat the provisions of the said Act. 19. In Safoora K.P. v. State of Kerala and others [ 2018 (3) KLJ 772 ], another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was dealing with a case in which, the writ petitioner was having ownership and possession of 4.86 ares of land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 08.10.2015 of the Sub Registrar Office, Taliparamba. Mutation has been effected in the name of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P2 and land tax has also been collected from the petitioner. Going by the averments in the writ petition, years back, transfer of about 439.74 ares of property, including the property now owned by the writ petitioner, was kept in abeyance by respondents 1 to 3 purportedly under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. However, subsequently, the Taluk Land Board had permitted piecemeal transactions with respect to those properties through an order dated 30.11.1994. However, subsequently, the Taluk Land Board had permitted piecemeal transactions with respect to those properties through an order dated 30.11.1994. Under the benefit of such order, the writ petitioner had purchased the properties covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that, the Sub Registrar, Taliparamba, is refusing to register the sale deed with respect to the properties referred to above and consequently, she is unable to sell the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. 20. In Safoora K.P., the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Selvam v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (1) KHC 581 ] in which, in the context of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 67 of the Kerala Registration Rules, the Division Bench held that, the powers sought to be exercised by the revenue officials by directing the registering officers not to register a document in Udumbanchola and Devikulam Taluks, particularly, in Chinnakkanal Village and Munnar area, in the absence of no-objection certificate, is prima facie arbitrary, illegal and without any sanction of law. So long as the provisions contained in the Registration Act do not give any power or authority to the revenue officials to meddle with the power vested with the registering authority under the Act, the action of the revenue officials cannot be countenanced or justified. However, the Division Bench has made it clear that the revenue officials will be at liberty to proceed against the property, which is sought to be transferred by the 1st appellant in favour of 2nd and 3rd appellants, if it is found that the said land belongs to the Government or that the patta allegedly obtained by the 1st appellant in respect of the said property is bogus. 21. 21. In Safoora K.P., this Court noticed that, the law laid down by the Division Bench may not be applicable in all cases, especially in view of the amendment that was subsequently made to the provisions of the Registration Act, whereby sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Act was introduced with effect from 13.09.2013, which provides that, 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. 22. In Safoora K.P., dealing with the contention raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader, relying on Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, this Court reiterated that, as held in Devassia [ 2015 (1) KHC 805 ], Section 120A of the Act is an enabling provision and it is not a prerequisite for registration of any document and that, the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government, has to satisfy based on materials that, any particular land is being transferred in order to defeat the provisions of the Act. Such satisfaction has to be arrived at by the competent authority concerned having regard to the subject of each transfer. As there was no record before this Court in that case that there was such satisfaction either on the part of the District Collector or by the officer authorised by the Government that the impugned transaction was intended to defeat the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, this Court held that resort to Section 120A of the Act cannot be the legal basis for denying the registration. In Safoora K.P., on the facts of that case, this Court found that, indisputably, the competent authority concerned including the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government in that regard, do not have any case that they have adequate materials on the basis of which, they have arrived at a conclusion that the present transfer sought to be made by the writ petitioner is intended to defeat the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore, reliance placed on Section 120A of the Act also cannot be the legal basis for denying the plea for registration in the instant case as well. 23. The law laid down by this Court in Devassia R.V. and reiterated in Safoora K.P. is that, before issuing prohibitory orders under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government has to satisfy that any particular land is being transferred in order to defeat the provisions of the Act. That, satisfaction has to be recorded having regard to the subject of each transfer. As already noticed, no prohibitory order issued by the District Collector or any other officer authorised by the Government, invoking the provisions under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, was under challenge in Devassia R.V. and the writ petitions were filed when the Revenue Officials refused to effect mutation in respect of the land alleging violation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and in some cases, the registering authority insisted for no-objection certificate for the purpose of registration of the document involving exempted land. Similarly, no prohibitory order issued under Section 120A of the Act, was under challenge in Safoora K.P., and the grievance of the writ petitioner was that the Sub Registrar, Taliparamba, is refusing to register the sale deed with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1 and consequently, she is unable to sell that property. None of the unreported decisions relied on by the learned counsel has struck a note against the view stated as above. 24. In the instant case, as already noticed, while proceedings were pending before the Taluk Land Board, the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board received a complaint pointing out that the petitioner is going to effect transfer of its land, who informed the matter to the 1st respondent to issue prohibitory order under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, since the intention behind the land transaction appeared to be for defeating the ceiling provisions under the Act. Accordingly, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P13 prohibitory order to the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, under Section 120A of the Act, in order to prevent transfer of the land. Accordingly, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P13 prohibitory order to the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, under Section 120A of the Act, in order to prevent transfer of the land. Therefore, Ext.P13 prohibitory order issued by the 1st respondent District Collector, during the pendency of suo motu proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, cannot be said to be one issued without reasonable grounds to believe that any document relating to transfer of land of the land owned by the petitioner, which may be presented before the 3rd respondent registering officer, is intended to defeat the provisions of the said Act. The said order warrants no interference in this writ petition, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. After Ext.P14 order dated 26.02.2020 of the Taluk Land Board, the petitioner submitted Ext.P15 representation dated 19.06.2020 before the 1st respondent District Collector, with a request to lift Ext.P13 prohibitory order issued under Section 120A of the Act. The said representation is still pending consideration. From the statement filed by the 1st respondent it is seen that, the Secretary, State Land Board, vide letter dated 05.10.2020, has requested the Advocate General to file a revision against Ext.P14 order of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba, and the Government, vide letter dated 05.10.2020, has informed the office of the Advocate General that the State Land Board and the 1st respondent District Collector are directed to give necessary instructions to the Advocate General to challenge Ext.P14 order. 26. Since Ext.P15 representation made by the petitioner dated 19.06.2020, with a request to lift Ext.P13 prohibitory order issued under Section 120A of Kerala Land Reforms Act, is pending consideration before the 1st respondent District Collector, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision on that representation, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down hereinbefore, with notice to the petitioner and after affording its authorised representative an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Based on that decision, the 1st respondent shall issue appropriate instructions to respondents 2 and 3, without any delay.