Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) to execute a sale deed in favor of an allottee without imposing additional conditions that were not applied in previous transactions. The petitioner, an 83-year-old allottee of an apartment in the Marine Drive area of Ernakulam, challenged the delay in the registration of his property and the GCDA’s refusal to execute the sale deed directly in favor of his prospective buyer. Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the GCDA had permitted similar transactions in the past and held that the petitioner could not be subjected to a different procedure. The court directed the authority to execute the sale deed as per the petitioner's request, ensuring compliance with the conditions imposed in prior transactions.

During the 1980s, parts of the backwaters in Ernakulam were reclaimed, leading to the development of the Marine Drive area. The GCDA constructed residential apartments on the reclaimed land and issued allotment orders to buyers, as registration of apartments was not legally mandated at that time. The petitioner, an original allottee, was granted ownership through an allotment order dated June 23, 1984, upon payment of ₹4,86,797.

In 2003, the GCDA resolved to replace the earlier allotment orders with sale deeds to ensure legal registration of ownership. Several allottees availed of this opportunity, but the petitioner, who had relocated to the United States, applied for registration only in 2020. The GCDA prepared a draft sale deed in January 2022, and the petitioner completed procedural formalities, including obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" from the District Collector.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Culpable Homicide Charge Against Doctor For Patient's Death After Nurse's Injection Over Phone Instruction, Directs Trial For Negligence

Subsequently, the petitioner requested a waiver of stamp duty and later sought permission for direct registration of the sale deed in favor of M/s Shahi Spices India Private Ltd., a proposed buyer of the flat. The GCDA did not respond to the requests, and the petitioner later learned that other allottees had been permitted to transfer their ownership with the registration expenses borne by the buyer. The petitioner cited a 2021 transaction in which the legal heirs of an allottee had executed a sale deed in favor of a third party, but his request for similar treatment was denied.

The petitioner approached the High Court, seeking a directive for the GCDA to execute the sale deed without requiring him to first register the property in his own name.

The court examined the procedural history of similar transactions permitted by the GCDA and noted discrepancies in the authority’s handling of cases. The GCDA had earlier permitted an allottee’s legal heirs to transfer ownership directly to a third party in 2021, avoiding double taxation on stamp duty. The court recorded that "the Executive Committee did not refer to Ext.P5 sale deed executed by the GCDA in favor of the nominee of an allottee in 2021."

The GCDA justified its decision by citing concerns over potential loss of stamp duty to the state. However, the court reviewed the audit objections and found no reference to loss of stamp duty in transactions like the one sought by the petitioner. It observed 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."

Additionally, the court noted that the GCDA's decision would result in unnecessary financial burden on the petitioner. It stated that "if a document had been executed in 1984 in favor 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 court also found that the GCDA had been aware of this fact when permitting previous transactions.

Addressing the inconsistency in GCDA's approach, the judgment recorded that "having permitted such transactions, the 1st respondent as an instrumentality of the State cannot discriminate in the case of the petitioner."

The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the GCDA to execute the sale deed as requested by the petitioner, ensuring that the conditions applied were in line with those imposed in the 2021 transaction.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Returns Suit, Finds Plaintiffs' Claims Do Not Constitute a Commercial Dispute Under the Commercial Courts Act

The judgment stated: "There will be a direction to the 1st 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."

Case Title: Raman Nayar v. Greater Cochin Development Authority & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:17828
Case Number: WP(C) No. 42436 of 2024
Bench: Justice T.R. Ravi

[Read/Download order]