Madras High Court
T.Sundar vs The Sub Registrar on 22 October, 2009
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition (MD)Nos.10822 to 10834 of 2008 and 5739 to 5741 of 2008 M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2008 In W.P.(MD)No.10822 of 2008 T.Sundar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anbu Nagar, Tirunelveli. (R-2 Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2009 made in W.P.No.10822 to 10834 of 2008) Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to register the document namely, deed of sale dated 06.03.2008, bearing Doc.No.P200800031 of 2008 presented for registration in respect of property bearing Plot No.95, Vivekananda Nagar, comprised in S.No.143/1, 143/2, 144 & 145/1 of Keelanatham village, Palayamkottai Taluk, measuring an extent of 2722.5 Sq.ft. !For Petitioner ...Mr.S.Subbiah ^For 1st Respondent ...Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader. For 2nd Respondent ... Mr.A.Kannan :COMMON ORDER
By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since all the writ petitions have been filed seeking for an identical relief, they are taken up together.
2.The prayer in the writ petition is for a issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to register the sale deed presented by the respective petitioners in respect of the lands Keelanatham Village, Palayamkottai Taluk.
3.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have made certain averments about the title of their vendor and about the fact that they have purchased the said property and presented the sale deed for registration. The grievance is that though formalities relating to registration of the document has been completed the respondent is refusing to return the document. According to the petitioners, the lands in question were subject matter of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of a scheme promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The said land acquisition proceedings came to be challenged by the land owner Indumathi and three others by filing W.P.No.35199 of 2003 and an order of interim stay was granted in the said writ petition on 03.12.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.42789 of 2003. It is further stated that certain other persons have also questioned the land acquisition proceedings. It is further stated that the petitioners lands are totally unconnected with the said case and therefore, the refusal to return the sale deed is illegal. It is further submitted that the petitioners have given written representation on 09.06.2008 to the respondents personally stating that there is no impediment to register and release the document. Since the respondents failed to comply with the request of the petitioners, filed the above writ petitions.
4.Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have no jurisdiction to withhold the document. Learned counsel would further submit that the law on the subject has been settled by this Court and there is no jurisdiction to withhold the document. Learned counsel would further contend that even assuming the document is void document and the same may not have any effect on the rights and title of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioners would be entitled to stake the claim on the compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the registering authority has absolutely no right to investigate into the title.
5.Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Matrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam represented by its Secretary, Nochikkadu Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & 3 others reported in 2008(3) LW 766 and the decision of this Court in Tata Coffee Limited Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registeration, Government of Tamil Nadu Chennai-9 and others reported in 2008(3) CTC 614 and would contend that the writ petitions may be allowed as prayed for.
6.Mr.A.Kannan, learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board placing reliance upon the counter affidavit would contend that the acquired lands were taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 30.06.2003 and hence immediately after the taken over of the lands in the respective writ petitions, the entire revenue records and title automatically changed in the name of the Housing Board. Therefore, learned counsel would further contend that the first respondent is justified in refusing to release the document and the same is in the interest of protecting the government property. Further, it is stated that already instructions have been given to the second respondent by communication dated 20.08.2003 requesting to stop registration of the land covered in the survey numbers which was acquired for the Housing Board. Learned counsel would further contend that 4(1) notification was issued on 15.07.1992, the 5(A) enquiry was conducted on 30.10.1992 and declaration was published on 11.08.1993, the award enquiry was fixed on 28.12.1993 and the award was passed on 23.08.1995. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that after the award no person has got any vested right. It is further submitted that the petitioners fully knowing all these facts, purchased the property from persons who have absolutely no right or title over the property and as such, the petitioners have no legal right or claiming over the property. Learned counsel would further submit that the execution of sale deed and registration of the same is void and the question of such void transaction being recognised cannot be permitted.
7.Learned counsel further submit that there is no demarcation or division or no separation in the acquired land by the Housing Board which comes under Block VIII, Phase III scheme. Learned counsel would further submit that all the purchases were between January 2008 to September 2008 and these were done fully knowing that the writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings were dismissed by the Principal Bench of this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
8.I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9.The issue involved in the present writ petitions is as to whether the first respondent is entitled to return the sale deed in question after having register the same. The power of the registering authority, scope and the power of registering authority to retain the document after registration was extensively considered by the Court in the case of Tata Coffee Limited case as stated supra by the learned counsel for the petitioners wherein it has been held as follows:
"15.Therefore, a combined reading of the relevant portions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder apart from the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 makes it abundantly clear that after registration of a document, the Registering Authority has no power to retain the document. This position has been affirmed in Ramasamy Nallamanikenpatti V. The Inspector General of registration, Madras and others, 2003(4) LW 319, wherein A.K.Rajan,J has held that after registration on payment of stamp duty, there is no power to the Registering Authority to retain the document and thereafter, the validity or otherwise of the document can be only decided by the Civil Court. The operative portion are as follows:
"8.When the document has been registered on payment of stamp duty, there is no power for the Registering Authority to retain the document. If the property does not belong to the vendor who executed the sale deed and it belongs to someone else, the real owner may file a Suit, before the appropriate Court, to set aside the document. Further by any deed of conveyance executed by a person who had no right over the property that is conveyed, no right is conveyed. In such cases, the purchaser takes the risk of losing his money. But on that ground the Registering Authority or the Collector cannot refuse to return the document registered. The action of the respondent in refusing to release the document on the ground that the sale deed was executed by the person who was not the real owner is not legally sustainable. It is not for the Registering Authority to verify as to whether the vendor in the sale deed has a right to convey the property mentioned therein. Therefore the action of the respondents is not legal. It is nothing but highhandedness on the part of the respondents. The respondents have no right whatsoever to retain the document when once it has been registered in accordance with the Rules."
10.Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above referred decision, which has referred to various decisions of this Court in the earlier case, the principle which can be culled out is that the action of the respondents in refusing to release the document on the ground that the sale deed was executed by the person was not the real owner is not legally sustainable. It has been further held that it is not for the registering authority to verify as to whether the vendor in the sale deed has a right to convey the property mentioned therein. Hence, the said judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case, and on this ground alone, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
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 Hon'ble 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 Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Matrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam's case, the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.
13.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as stated supra, all the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. The first respondent is directed to return the sale deeds to the petitioners. It is made clear that merely because the sale deeds have been released, the same does not mean that the petitioners have title over the said properties and that apart the release of such sale deeds would in any manner affect or impeach the title of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, or its allottees. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
sms To
1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anbu Nagar, Tirunelveli.