Madras High Court
R.Tamil Selvi vs The Principal Secretary And ... on 29 October, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P(MD)No.17347 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 R.Tamil Selvi ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28. 3.The District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District. 5.The District Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District. 6.The Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District. ..Respondents Prayer 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 4th Respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka./A1/1357/09, dated 25.3.2009 insofar as it relates to the Petitioner's lands in Old S.No.65/6 and New S.No.300 of Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District and quash the same, as illegal and consequently, to direct the 6th respondent to take on file and register the documents in respect of the said lands. !For Petitioner :M/s.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates ^For Respondents :Mr.K.Guru Addl.Govt.Pleader :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2.The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent in Na.Ka./A1/1357/09, dated 25.3.2009, insofar as it relates to the Petitioner's lands in Old S.No.65/6 and New S.No.300 of Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District and quash the same, as illegal and consequently, to direct the 6th respondent to take on file and register the documents in so far as, her lands are concerned.
3.According to the Petitioner (Housewife), she purchased a landed property measuring to an extent of 5.40 Cents in Kalanivasal Village in Karaikudi Taluk from one S.Jeyalakshmi in the year 2004, by means of a registered Sale Deed. From that time onwards, she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and built a House in the said land and living in the said House till date.
4. It is the stand of the Petitioner that initially she supported her Daughter's education in Russia and to get over the hardships in their family, she had decided to avail financial assistance from the Bank for the said purpose and as such, availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/-, from the Indian Overseas Bank, by deposit of Title Deeds, in the year 2004. Added further, when she was in requirement of more money during the year 2009, she was required to provide additional security by the Bank, by depositing of Title Deed of her house, as a security, witnessed by a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds.
5.As a matter of fact, she prepared a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in respect of her property in Survey No.65/6 in Kalanivasal Village of Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and then, she made an endeavor to present the same for registration, on the file of the 6th Respondent / Sub Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, the 6th Respondent refused even to take it on record and informed her that the 4th Respondent, by the impugned proceedings, dated 25.03.2009, had directed the 6th Respondent, the Sub Registrar, Karaikudi, not to register any document in respect of lands in certain Survey Numbers in Kalanivasal Village of Karaikudi Taluk. With great difficulty, she was able to get a copy of the impugned proceedings, dated 25.03.2009. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the Registration Act, 1908, is an inbuilt and self contained Act coupled with the Rules made thereunder and the said Act and Rules enjoin the powers of the Registration Authority.
6. That apart, the pith and substance of the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the 6th Respondent has no power to prevent the Petitioner from presenting the Documents / Deeds in respect of her property for registration. Also that, the plea of the Petitioner is that the 6th Respondent cannot refuse registration of the Memorandum of Title Deeds, on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government or any other body. Likewise, the 4th Respondent is not empowered under any Law to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 25.03.2009, whereby and whereunder, a direction was issued to the Registering Authority not to register any Sale Deeds in respect of the Petitioner's land. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to submit that despite the clarification issued by the 1st Respondent, dated 10.04.2012, addressed to the 3rd Respondent, the 6th Respondent has refused to register any documents presented for registration by the Petitioner and in fact, the impugned order passed by the 6th Respondent, in short, is in contravention of his statutory duty to register the Documents in question.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites a decision of this Court in T.Sundar v. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub- Registrar,Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and another reported in (2010 (2) CWC
159), whereby and whereunder, in paragraphs 11 and 12, it is observed and laid down as follows:
?11.Next, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that a communication has been sent by the second respondent to the first respondent not to entertain any sale deed in respect of the said survey numbers. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court had decided the scope of such direction in the nature of prohibition and whether the same could be issued by either the Government or any other body to the said registration of assurance directing him not to entertain any document. In Thiyavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Matrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam, represented by its Secretary, Nochikkadu .vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and three others, 2008(3) LW 766, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court held that there is no provision under the statute where the State Government or the respondents therein can validly issue any directions refusing to register any document for which registration is permissible under the provisions of the Act.
12.Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, the direction issued by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent is also to be held as unsustainable. In fact, the learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the release of the document is always subject to the right which has already accrued in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by resisting to release the document by the Board is not justifiable.?
8.It is to be noted that in the aforesaid decision T.Sundar v. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and Another reported in 2010(2) CWC 159, in regard to the direction given by the Respondent therein to the Registration Authority not to register certain documents pertaining to certain survey numbers. It is held that there is no provision under the Statute, which enables the Respondent to give direction to that effect and further, the document for which registration is permissible under the Registration Act, has to be registered.
9. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the order dated 25.4.2014 in W.P(MD)No.13811 of 2012 between K.Rajaguru and the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, whereby and whereunder, in paragraphs 8 to 10, it is observed and held as under:
?8.On a misconceptionthat the survey Nos.65/1 and 65/2 are related to Government properties, the fourth respondent, by memo dated 25.3.2009 which is impugned herein, directed the Sub-Registrar, not to register the documents presented for registration. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, by letter dated 10.4.2012, requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai to withdraw the memo dated 25.3.2009, which is impugned herein and inform the same to the Registration Department. But, till date, the said letter has not been withdrawn, so that the authorities continued refusing registration of the document presented by the Petitioner.
9.The Government filed a counter affidavit referring to the direction given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, so that the document sought to be registered was not registered. Now, the Government itself requested the District Collector, by letter dated 10.4.2012, to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, to withdraw the memo dated 25.3.2009, which is impugned herein and on that score, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10.In view of the foregoing reasons and also in view of the decision cited supra, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned memo dated 25.03.2009 is set aside and the sixth respondent is directed to register the document presented by the Petitioner, if it is otherwise found fit and release the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.?
10.The core submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Registration Authority under the Registration Act, 1908, has no power to refuse registration of the document, which is permissible to be registered.
11. As far as the present case is concerned, in the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent, dated 25.03.2009, whereby a direction was given to the Sub-Registrar-I and Sub-Registrar-II of Karaikudi, not to register the documents in respect of S.No.65 (Sub-divided as 298 to 323 - as new numbers) and imposed a temporary ban, which is not legally sustainable one in the eye of Law.
12.Moreover, it is also contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Registering Authority can refuse registration of the document only on the ground specifying in terms of ingredients of Sections 34 to 52 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 55 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1949. Also it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent, through proceedings dated 10.04.2012, addressed to the 3rd Respondent (by RPAD) had interalia stated in paragraphs 4 to 8, as under:-
"4. It is seen that the District Collector has misconstrued that 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 the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai after the year 1996. Due to this misconceptions of facts the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai directed the Sub-Registrars I & II of Karaikudi to suspend the registration of document in respect of S.No.65/1 and 65/2.
5. Since the lands are not classified as Government Poromboke land nor Anadheenam lands, there is no justification on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer to direct the Registration Department to suspend the registration of documents in respect of S.No.65/1 and 65/2. They are not empowered to impose blanket ban on the registration of documents under the Registration Act. In this connection, I wish to draw your attention to the D.O.letter dated 16.2.2012 addressed to all the District Collectors by the Inspector General of Registration wherein it has been emphasised that if the District Collectors feel that certain type of documents need not be registered they should address the Inspector General of Registration and necessary instructions will be issued to the Sub-Registrars by the Inspector General of Registration accordingly.
6. Hence, i request you to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer of Devakottai to withdraw the memo dated 25.3.2009 and inform the same to the Registration Department."
13. On a careful consideration of the submission projected on behalf of the Petitioner and also this Court taking note of the same in right, earnest fashion comes to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that no direction can be issued by one Authority of the Registration Department to other / another authorities concerned of the same Department to the effect that they shall not register the documents in question and in fact, there is no provision under the Registration Act, 1908, which enables the 4th Respondent / RDO Devakottai, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, to issue the impugned order, dated 25.03.2009 in so far as the present case is concerned.
14. Viewed In the aforesaid perspective, the impugned order dated 25.03.2009, passed by the 4th Respondent bristles with infirmities and patent illegalities in the eye of Law, in the considered opinion of this Court. Resultantly, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent, dated 25.03.2009 and accordingly, to prevent an aberration of justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, sets aside the impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds.
15.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Fourth Respondent, dated 25.03.2009, is set aside by this Court for the reasons ascribed by this Court in the present Writ Petition. It is made clear that, as and when the Petitioner presents the document for registration, if the same is in accordance with law, then, the 6th Respondent shall register the same in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law, without any hasiness or hesitation whatsoever. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
29.10.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MPK To
1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.
3.The District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District.
5.The District Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District.
6.The Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District.
M.VENUGOPAL, J MPK W.P(MD)No.17347 of 2014 29.10.2014