Prison authorities must escort a convict to the Sub-Registrar to complete sale-deed registration.

The petitioner, a life-convict and co-owner of immovable property at Koradampalli Village, sought to sell the property with his family.

Because he was in Central Prison, Kalaburagi, he could not attend the Sub-Registrar’s office to execute the sale deed.

His family’s request to complete registration formalities at the prison was not accepted, and the petitioner also sought three days’ parole for that purpose.

In the writ proceedings, the State submitted that prison authorities were willing to escort him, under police protection, to the Sub-Registrar’s office on a scheduled date.

Whether the petitioner should be facilitated in executing the proposed sale deed while in prison, including by arranging his appearance before the Sub-Registrar.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the requested parole, or whether escorted attendance at the Sub-Registrar’s office would provide the necessary relief.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court cited no specific statutory provision or precedent.

It exercised its writ jurisdiction to facilitate the petitioner’s appearance for registration while directing the prison authority to take necessary precautions to prevent his escape.

The Court noted that the petitioner was a co-owner and that his inability to attend the Sub-Registrar’s office impeded completion of the proposed sale deed.

The State’s submission that prison authorities would escort him to that office under police protection provided a practical means of completing the registration formalities without requiring parole.

The Court therefore directed escorted attendance, subject to appropriate security precautions.

Respondent No. 4 was also directed to take necessary precautions to ensure that the petitioner did not abscond during the process.

The order did not expressly grant parole or separately quash the endorsement rejecting the parole request.