JUDGMENT During the 1980’s, portions of the backwaters in Ernakulam were reclaimed and constructions were permitted on the reclaimed land. The area became known as Marine Drive. The Greater Cochin Development Authority ('GCDA' for short) who is the 1 st respondent in this writ petition constructed possibly the first apartment complex in the State in the reclaimed area and allotted apartments. Orders of allotment were alone issued since, then, the law did not contain any provision for the registration of apartments. The petitioner had been allotted an apartment as per Ext.P1 order dated 23.6.1984, on payment of the sale price of Rs.4,86,797/-. The petitioner thereafter shifted to the United State of America. 2. In 2003, the GCDA resolved to execute sale deeds in the names of allottees, replacing the allotment orders. Several of the allottees got their flats registered in their names. In the year 2020, the petitioner requested for registration of the flat. On payment of the required amounts, a draft sale deed was prepared on 27.1.2022 by the GCDA, with file number 19678/Estate/B2/R3/1983/GCDA. The petitioner thereafter got an error in his name corrected by notification in the Gazette and obtained a “No Objection Certificate” from the District Collector. 3. The draft sale deed required the petitioner to bear the registration expenses with the current fair value of the land. The petitioner, hence, submitted a request dated 25.5.2024 to the 1 st respondent to waive the stamp duty. When there was no action on the request, the petitioner sent a reminder on 10.6.2024, which also did not evoke any response. While so, the petitioner came to know that the GCDA has permitted the allottees to sell the flat, and shift the obligation to meet the expenses of the registration like the stamp duty and the registration fee, to the buyer. The petitioner has cited the example of Flat No.B52, which was sold as per Sale Deed No.546 of 2021 of Ernakulam Sub Registrar Office, by the legal heirs of the original allottee Late Sebastian Alokkaran to Mr. Shaji. M. Varghese in 2021. 4. Referring to the above instance, the petitioner approached the 1 st respondent for registering the document in favour of M/s Shahi Spices India Private Ltd., Plot No. 40, 48, GUT No. 372 & 379, Aliyali, Diwan Sons Industrial Estate, Palghar District, Maharastra-401404, who proposed to buy the flat from the petitioner. Shaji. M. Varghese in 2021. 4. Referring to the above instance, the petitioner approached the 1 st respondent for registering the document in favour of M/s Shahi Spices India Private Ltd., Plot No. 40, 48, GUT No. 372 & 379, Aliyali, Diwan Sons Industrial Estate, Palghar District, Maharastra-401404, who proposed to buy the flat from the petitioner. The petitioner came down to India for the above purpose on 5.8.2024 and had been pursuing the matter with the GCDA, but the registration was getting delayed for the reason that the Executive Committee of the GCDA had not yet decided on the matter. The writ petition was filed in the above circumstances, praying for a direction to the 1 st respondent to execute the sale deed Ext.P1, as requested in Exts.P6 and P7 forthwith, at any rate, on or before 07.12.2024. 5. On 16.12.2024, this Court directed the GCDA to place the case of the petitioner at the next meeting of the GCDA and report its decision to this Court. The case was then posted on 6.1.2025. The Standing Counsel for the GCDA has filed a statement, stating that the case of the petitioner was placed in the Executive Committee Meeting held on 04.01.2025 and it was decided that the registration can only be in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of the proposed buyer. The copy of the decision has been produced as Annexure R1(a). On 7.1.2025, the order was made available to this Court. The 1 st respondent thereafter filed a counter affidavit producing the decision and other documents. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that Flat No.51 C was allotted to the petitioner in 1984. It is stated that the GCDA had initiated the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the allottees in 2003 and the same was getting delayed due to lack of interest on the part of the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner submitted application for registration on 04.11.2019. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to pay the cost share for the sewage treatment plant which was installed for the usage of the flats and it was only in January, 2022 that the petitioner paid the entire amount which was to be paid by him as required by GCDA. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to pay the cost share for the sewage treatment plant which was installed for the usage of the flats and it was only in January, 2022 that the petitioner paid the entire amount which was to be paid by him as required by GCDA. It is stated that on payment of the amounts, the draft sale deed was provided to the petitioner on 14.03.2022. It is stated that the application for change of name was made only on 13.10.2022, and NOC from District Collector was received only on 28.05.2024 and thereafter a new draft sale deed was provided to the petitioner on 21.8.2024. The petitioner requested for concession of registration fee on 18.9.2024 based on Government order dated 16.7.2012, but the petitioner was informed that the concession was not available for him. It is stated that said concession was not granted to the allottees of Ashoka flat. 6. Regarding the sale deed executed in 2021 in favour of Mr. Shaji M.Varghese, it is stated that the reliance placed on the said instance was on a wrong understanding of facts. It is stated that the flats in Ashoka Apartments are included under the Authority's Cochin Marine Drive Scheme and as per Clause 30 of the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the transfer of property shall be permitted only upon payment of the prescribed transfer fee fixed by GCDA. It is stated that appropriate steps were taken by the GCDA to transfer Flat No.B52 to another person after ensuring compliance with Clause No.30 and that the petitioner cannot claim the same benefit as a right and any transfer can only be subject to the prevailing rules and regulations of the Authority, direct meeting with the parties, obtaining approval from the Executive Committee regarding the transfer fee, and thereafter fulfilling all requisite formalities. It is also stated that the GCDA Executive Committee holds full authority to approve or reject a transfer request, as the property belongs to GCDA and that the decision of the Executive Committee regarding any transfer shall be final and binding. It is also stated that the application for registering the flat in the name of the 2 nd respondent was submitted only after giving the draft sale deed. It is also stated that the application for registering the flat in the name of the 2 nd respondent was submitted only after giving the draft sale deed. It is stated that the application could not be placed before the Executive Committee held on 29.11.2024 since it was not in the required form and did not comply with the requirements. It is stated that the matter was thereafter considered on 02.12.2024 and on 04.12.2024 an application in the required format was obtained and the final decision was taken on 04.01.2025. 7. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 8. It is seen from Annexure R1(a) that the Executive Committee decided to register the flat in the name of the petitioner, instead of M/s.Shahi Spices India Pvt. Ltd., since it may result in loss of stamp duty to the State on the first transaction. However, it is also seen from the decision that the Executive Committee did not refer to Ext.P5 sale deed executed by the GCDA in favour of nominee of an allottee in 2021. Along with the counter affidavit filed on 22.01.2025, the 1 st respondent has produced Exs.R1(a) to R1(d). Ext.R1(a) is a letter dated 28.11.2024 from the Secretary of the GCDA to the Principal Secretary. Referring to the request of the petitioner, it is stated in the letter that the delay in the registration was due to the lack of interest of the petitioner. Ext.R1(b) is the copy of the terms and conditions for allotment of residential flats and commercial spaces under the Cochin Marine Drive Scheme, which was issued on 26.07.1983. The terms and conditions do not speak of registration of the apartment and speaks only of allotment and conditions of allotment. Ext.R1(c) is the copy of the letter dated 04.12.2024 sent by the petitioner to the GCDA forwarding Form I and Form II for the purpose of registration of flat No.C51 and Ext.R1(d) is the copy of the decision of the Executive Committee which has been referred earlier. 9. When the case was heard on 24.01.2025, it was submitted by the Standing Counsel for the GCDA that as regards transactions like Ext.P5, objections have been raised in the audit and that was the reason why a similar relief was not granted in the case of the petitioner. 9. When the case was heard on 24.01.2025, it was submitted by the Standing Counsel for the GCDA that as regards transactions like Ext.P5, objections have been raised in the audit and that was the reason why a similar relief was not granted in the case of the petitioner. The case was thereafter taken on 29.01.2025 on which date the Standing Counsel placed before the Court the audit objections that are stated to have been received. It is seen from the audit objections that the objection was regarding the cost sharing of the Cochin Marine Drive Sewage Treatment Plant. There is absolutely no reference to any loss of stamp duty in transactions like Ext.P5. Another aspect referred to is regarding the arrears in collection of property tax concerning buildings in the commercial complex at Marine Drive. The only reference to the loss of stamp duty is regarding the contract for exhibition of advertisements in the Ambedkar Stadium under the ownership of GCDA. I find that there is no real basis for the submission made on 24.1.2025 that there were audit objections regarding the transactions similar to Ext.P5. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner is an allottee and has been continuing as such from 23.6.1984. It is also admitted that there was no process of registration during that period of time. The registration is sought to be done almost 40 years later, by which time the registration laws have undergone several changes and even the rate of stamp duty and the value of the apartments have gone up considerably. If a document had been executed in 1984 in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would not have had to shell out the stamp duty which is payable for the present value of the apartments. The GCDA was also very much aware of this fact situation which is the reason why at the time of registration of Ext.P5, the allottee was permitted to have the registration carried out in the name of a nominee/transferee from the allottee, who would meet the obligation to pay the stamp duty payable on the transaction, thus avoiding the stamp duty on an initial transfer in favour of the allottee. The GCDA had executed the transfer to the nominee of the allottee in the case of Ext.P5 treating the allotment letter to the allottee as a complete transfer. The GCDA had executed the transfer to the nominee of the allottee in the case of Ext.P5 treating the allotment letter to the allottee as a complete transfer. However, in Ext.R1(d), the stand taken by the GCDA is that there should be two sale deeds, one in favour of the petitioner on payment of the stamp duty and thereafter if the petitioner wants to transfer the same to M/s.Shahi Spices, there should be another transfer resulting in payment of stamp duty over again. If the petitioner chooses not to transfer the apartment and not to have the sale deed registered, he would still be entitled to continue as an allottee and he cannot be evicted from the property. It is highly improper and unjust on the part of the 1 st respondent to take such a stand, and I find that having permitted such transactions, the 1 st respondent as instrumentality of State cannot discriminate in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is hence entitled to succeed in this writ petition. 11. The writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to execute Ext.P1 as requested in Exts.P6 and P7 forthwith on the petitioner complying with the conditions similar to the one imposed at the time of execution and registration of Ext.P5.