WP/32746/2002 of M. GOPINATHAN Vs THE SUB-REGISTRAR, on 30 December 2003

:O R D E R

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. Prayer in W.P.No.32746 of 2002 is for issuing a writ of mandamusdirecting the first respondent to release the four gift deeds bearingNos.P.42, P.43, P.44 and P.45 of 1999, which were presented for registrationon 24.2.1999. Prayer in the connected W.P.No.41319 of 2002 is for issuing awrit of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent inD.Dis.11068/2002 dated 23.9.2002.

3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the disputed properties.This position is disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents. For the purpose of deciding the questions raised in the present writ petitions, itis unnecessary to delve into the question as to whether the petitioners are infact the owners of the disputed properties as such question can be decidedbefore the appropriate forum as and when the question arises.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that though four documents were presented for registration and necessary stamp duty had beencollected, the Sub-Registrar did not return the documents after registration.The Sub-Registrar had called upon the petitioners to get clarification fromthe Collector. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Collector, whopassed the impugned order dated 23.9.2 002. The relevant portion of theimpugned order is to the following effect :- — . . . It is informed that the land in question is covered underSection 17 of the Gudalur Janmam Abolition Act, 1969 and the title of the saidlands are yet to be decided by the Settlement Officer.Hence the petitioners are informed that their request can beconsidered only after deciding the title of the lands by the SettlementOfficer.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.No.32746 of

2002. From the impugned order passed by the Collector and the stand taken inthe counter, it is apparent that the documents had not been registered anddelivered to the petitioners mainly on the ground that the propertiesallegedly come under the The Tamil Nadu Gudalur Jenmam Estates (Abolition andconversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 and a case was pending in the SupremeCourt in C.A.Nos.367 to 375 of 1977 and a prohibitory order was passed by theSupreme Court prohibiting the sale of lands and the leasehold rights of anyland coming under Section 17 of the The Tamil Nadu Gudalur Jenmam Estates(Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969. Relevant portion of theorder passed by the Supreme Court in C.M.P.Nos.1229 to 1237 of 1997 inC.A.Nos.367 to 3 75 of 1977 is to the following effect :- . . . The petitioner also undertakes not to alienate any part ofthe properties involved in the writ petition, whether by way of sale, mortgageor charge or otherwise, till the disposal of the writ petition.

6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

Conclusion

6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is to the effect that the aforesaid order passed by the SupremeCourt has no relevance for the present purpose. Moreover, the Civil Appealsas well as the writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court have been disposed ofby order dated 7.9.1999. It is further contended that the property nowinvolved was not the disputed property in the aforesaid cases. However, it isunnecessary to deal this question, as according to me even assuming that thepresent property was also involved in the cases filed before the SupremeCourt, such cases have been disposed of and injunction order if any havelapsed. Even assuming that injunction order is still continuing, if there isany violation of such order by any person, he shall be bound by such order andit is always open to the aggrieved party to bring the matter to the notice ofthe Hon ble Supreme Court for taking appropriate action for such violation,but however, that cannot be an excuse for the registering authorities torefuse registration or to retain the documents.

7. Moreover, the registering authorities are not concerned with the consequences of a particular transaction. This is apparent from Rule55 of the Registration Rules framed under Section 69 of the Registration Act.Rule 55 is to the following effect :-55. It forms no part of a registering officer’s duty to enquire intothe validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to anywritten or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on theground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but heis bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below :- (a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; (b) that the document is forged;

(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent,has no right to appear in that capacity; (d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; or (e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.

8. It is also necessary to notice some other relevant provisions contained in the Registration Act as well as the Rules framedthereunder. Part XII of the Act relates to Refusal to Register. Section 71is to the following effect:-

71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.- (1) Every SubRegistrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that theproperty to which it relates is not situate within his subdistrict, shall makean order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his book No.2,and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and onapplication made by any person executing or claiming under the document,shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasonsso recorded.

(2) NO registering officer shall accept for registration a document soendorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, thedocument is directed to be registered.

9. Therefore, as per the provisions contained in the Registration Act and the Rules, the registering authority has no jurisdictionto keep the documents presented for registration pending on the ground thatthe property involved came under The Tamil Nadu Gudalur Jenmam Estates(Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969. No provision has beenbrought to my notice from the said Act which also prohibits the registeringauthority from registering any document. Registering authority is to satisfyitself regarding the execution of the document and not about the right of theperson to deal with the property. Law is well settled that even if anydocument alienating any property is registered it would not confer right uponthe alienee unless the alienor had any right. Purchaser cannot get a bettertitle than that of the vendor. That is a matter, which normally does not comewithin the domain of the registering authority.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, brought to my notice the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration Act,which was introduced by way of amendment under Tamil Nadu Act 48 of 1997 witheffect from 28.8.1997. Section 22-A is to the following effect :-22-A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy.-(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Tamil Nadu GovernmentGazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documentsis opposed to public policy.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registeringofficer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issuedunder sub-section (1) is applicable.

11. Even though such a provision came into effect on 28.8.1997, notification as contemplated under Section 22-A was issued for thefirst time under G.O.Ms.No.150 on 22.9.2000. Relevant portion of thenotification is to the following effect :- — . . . In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act, XVI of 1908), theGovernor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares the following documents as opposed topublic policy, namely:-

1. Any instrument relating to, -

(i) conveyance of properties belonging to the Government or the localbodies such as the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or Corporations,or Municipalities, or Town Panchayats, or Panchayat Unions or VillagePanchayats; or . . .

12. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that since the disputed properties belong to the Government,the documents relating to conveyance of properties belonging to suchGovernment is opposed to public policy and as such under Section 2 2-A readwith sub-section (2), the registering authority is bound to refuse any suchdocument. The notification having been issued for the first time on22.9.2000, does not have any retrospective effect so as to affect transactionsprior to issuance of such notification. As a matter of fact, neither in theimpugned order of the Collector nor in the counter affidavit filed on behalfof the respondents, such a stand had been taken. This submission made by thelearned counsel for the respondents is therefore not acceptable.

13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned letter dated 23.9.2002 /issued by the Collector cannot besustained and is hereby quashed and the registering authority is directed toreturn the documents after registering the same. It is however made clearthat merely because the documents would be registered and handed over to thepetitioner, that will not confer any right on the petitioners if their vendorsdid not have any right over the property. The question as to whether thevendors/petitioners have any right or whether the State Government is theowner of the property is to be decided before the appropriate forum and noopinion is expressed on the aforesaid aspect.

14. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowedsubject to the observations made. The direction issued should be compliedwithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Index : YesInternet : Yes

dpk

To1. The General Manager,Tamilnadu State TransportCorporation,Villupuram Division II Ltd.,Vellore 9.

2. The Enquiry Officer-Ii,Tamilnadu State TransportCorporation,Villupuram Division II Ltd.,Vellore 9.