Madras High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs The Principal Secretary And ... on 28 April, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.7046 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
Department of Land Reforms,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector General of Registrarion,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
3. The District Collector,
Sivaganga District,
Sivaganga.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivaganga District.
5. The District Registrar,
Karaikudi,
Sivaganga District.
6. The Sub-Registrar,
Karaikudi,
Sivaganga District.
7.The Assistant Land Tax
cum Settlement Officer,
Karaikudi Division,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order made by the fourth respondent by his
proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to the
petitioner's lands in Plot No.4, Survey No.65/1, in Kalanivasal Village,
Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District and quash the same as illegal and
consequently, direct the sixth respondent to take on file and register
documents in respect of the said lands.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
^For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan,
Additional Government Pleader
:O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is giving up the relief sought for in this writ petition as against the seventh respondent. The said submission is recorded.
3.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court praying for calling the records relating to the impugned order made by the fourth respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to the petitioner's lands in Plot No.4, Survey No.65/1, in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District and to quash the same, as illegal. Further, a consequential order is sought in directing the sixth respondent to take on the Sale Deed and register the documents in respect of the lands.
4.According to the petitioner, she had purchased the land measuring an extent of 3200 sq.ft. in Kalanivasal Village in Karaikudi Taluk in the year 2003 through a registered Sale Deed. Thereafter, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, as she was in need of money, she intended to sell the properties. Hence, she approached few buyers and the transaction got finalised. When she visited the office of the sixth respondent to present the sale deed in August 2014, she was informed that no document or deed witnessing any conveyance of any property in Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village of Karaikudi Taluk could be registered on account of the impugned proceedings issued by the Fourth Respondent.
5.The petitioner was able to obtain the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 25.03.2009, by which the sixth respondent / Sub Registrar, Karaikudi was directed not to register any document in respect of lands in Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk. The said impugned proceedings was passed on the basis that the said lands in Survey No.65 was erroneously sub-divided by the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai without jurisdiction. On the strength of the said impugned proceedings, the sixth respondent has been refusing to entertain any documents for registration. The petitioner also came to know that the second respondent ? Inspector General of Registration has also by his proceedings dated 21.12.2012 advised the fifth respondent that the registrars should not refuse registration. Also, they came to know that the first respondent had also by his communication dated 10.04.2012, stated that the Government has been appraised of the fact that the land in Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village are classified as 'Ryotwari Dry' and not vested in the Government at the time of settlement and that the third respondent had misconstrued the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai between the year 1983-85 was beyond his jurisdiction and considered those orders on par with the other fraudulent orders passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai after the year 1996. It is only due to the misconception of the fact that the fourth respondent by the impugned order had directed the sixth respondent not to register any document in respect of such lands.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in proceedings dated 10.04.2012, the first respondent had stated that the properties in issue are not classified as Government Poromboke Land nor Anadheenam Lands and that the fourth respondent had no justifications or jurisdiction to suspend the registration of documents in respect of Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk and therefore, requested the District Collector, the third respondent to direct the fourth respondent to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009. The petitioner was able to obtain the copies of the aforesaid proceedings from the office of the fourth respondent in September 2014. As a matter of fact, the communication dated 10.04.2012 of the first respondent has not been withdrawn till today and it is alone alive.
7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent is not permitting her to present the Documents/Deeds in respect of the property in issue for registration.
8. It is the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner that the sixth Respondent cannot refuse registration on the basis of instruction issued by the Government or any other body. Likewise, the fourth respondent is not empowered under any law to issue the impugned proceedings whereby directing the Registrar not to register any sale deed in respect of the petitioners' lands.
9. When that be the aforesaid factual scenario, the petitioner presented the documents in respect of her properties to the sixth respondent together with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.04.2012 seeking to register the document, as per the proceedings of the first respondent. However, the sixth respondent has refused to entertain the same.
10. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Registering Authority, under the Registration Act, 1908, has power to register a 'Document', which is permissible to be registered. As such, in the instant case, in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 25.03.2009, whereby a direction was given to the Sub Registrar I & II of Karaikudi not to register the documents in respect of Survey No.65 (sub divided as 298 to 323 as new numbers) and imposed a temporary ban, is not legally valid one in the eye of law.
11. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to a recent order dated 28.10.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014 between M.Malathy vs. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai and five others, wherein this Court, on a similar issue, has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the fourth respondent for the reasons ascribed therein. Also, this Court, in the said writ petition, had issued a directions to the effect that "as and when the petitioner presents the document for registration, if the same is in accordance with law, then, the sixth respondent shall register the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law etc."
12. In view of the fact that the reliefs sought for by the present writ petitioner are similar to that of the reliefs prayed for in W.P.No.(MD).No.17325 of 2014, this Court, by following the order dated 28.10.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014, allows the present writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order of the fourth respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to petitioner's land in Plot No.4, Survey No.65/1, in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, in the interest of justice. Further, this Court passes an order to the effect that as and when the petitioner presents the 'Documents' for registration, if the same are in accordance with law, then, the sixth respondent shall register the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.04.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No KM R.MAHADEVAN,J.
KM To
1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Department of Land Reforms, Government of Tamilnadu, Chepauk, Chennai.
2. The Inspector General of Registrarion, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
3. The District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District.
5. The District Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District.
7.The Assistant Land Tax cum Settlement Officer, Karaikudi Division, Madurai.
W.P(MD)No.7046 of 2015and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 28.04.2015