Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
The Registration Act, 1908
Pandurangan vs The Sub Registrar on 8 November, 2006
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
E.R.Kalaivan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 9 July, 2009
Section 34 in The Registration Act, 1908

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Madras High Court
K.Velmurugan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 19 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:   19-01-2011

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN 

W.P.No.22985 of 2010 and
M.P.No.1 of 2010

K.Velmurugan							.. Petitioner.
Versus

1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Santhome, Chennai-600 004.

2. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur.

3. The Inspector General of Police,
CBCID, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032.

4. The Sub-Registrar,
Avadi Sub-Registration Office,
Avadi, Chennai-600 054.					.. Respondents. 

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceeding, Ka.No.50362/R3/10, dated 30.8.2010 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the fourth respondent to entertain, admit and register the instrument of the petitioner, viz., sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, in respect of the property, being vacant site, bearing Plot No.155 in the Layout of Thirumalai Nagar Annexe-III, measuring an extent of 1200 square feet, comprised in Survey Nos.s489/7, 510/5B, 510/6 & 510/7B, situate at No.5, Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District and release the same. 
		

		For petitioner	: Mr.N.G.P.Rajaram

		For respondents 	: Mr.S.Gopinathan
					   Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, and to direct the fourth respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner, dated 18.8.2010, relating to the property bearing Plot No.155, in Thirumalai Nagar, Annexe III Layout, measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft, in S.Nos.489/7, 510/B, 510/6 and 510/7B, situate at No.5, Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, and to release the said document after registration.

2. It has been stated that the property in question is a vacant site, having an extent of 1200 sq.ft, forming a part of a vast extent of lands in Morai Villai, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, which had, originally, belonged to the ancestors of one Chenchu Raja. The legal heirs of the said Chenchu Raja, had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the lands, in S.Nos.489/7, 510/5B, 510/6 and 510/7B, in Morai Village. The title in respect of the properties in question are traceable, from the records available, to the ancestors of Chenchu Raja, who were the shrotriyundars, in respect of the properties in Morai village. An inam settlement had been issued by the Inam Commissioner, on 17.5.1865. During the second world war, the Indian Military troops had occupied the entire village forcing the residents and those who were the owners of the properties to flee the village. However the title of the property in which the petitioner had purchased the land in question, by way of a sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, from the legal heirs of Chenchu Raja, is not in dispute.

3. It has been further stated that, when the petitioner had presented the sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, for registration, before the fourth respondent, along with the necessary stamp duty, the fourth respondent had returned the same stating that there was an order passed by the first respondent, bearing Ka.No.50362/R3/10, dated 30.8.2010, stating that the fourth respondent could admit the documents in question, for registration, only after obtaining a `No Objection Certificate' from the second and the third respondents.

4. It has been further stated that the order of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. There is no rule or government order requiring the production of a `No Objection Certificate' from the third and the fourth respondents. Further, the respondents 1 to 3 do not have the authority or power to issue a blanket order preventing the registration of the documents, in respect of a particular village. It is the duty of the registering authority to register all the documents presented to him for the purpose of registration and to return the same thereafter. He does not have the power, either to accept the document for registration or to keep the documents with him after its registration, without returning it to the parties concerned.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, is arbitrary, illegal and void. He had also submitted that the refusal of the fourth respondent to admit the sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, for registration, is against the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the principles of natural justice. He had also submitted that there is no law empowering, either the first and the fourth respondents to insist that the parties to the sale deed should get a `No Objection Certificate' from the second and the third respondents. The fourth respondent is under an obligation to receive the document in question, to register it and to return the same to the parties concerned. Therefore, the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent, on 30.8.2010, refusing to accept the sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, is illegal and void.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.

1) State of Rajasthan V. Basant Nahata (2005(4) CTC 606)

2) G.Karmegam Vs. Jt.Sub-Registrar (2008 (I) MLJ 789 (FB)

3) Captain Dr.R.Bellie and another V. The Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Sulur (2007 Writ L.r. 597)

4) Pandurangan V. Sub-Registrar (2006(4) MLJ 1440)

5) R.G.Rathinam V. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram and another (Madurai Bench) (2009(3) L.W. 890)

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it has been stated that the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, vide his letter bearing reference No.50362/R3/2010, dated 30.8.2010, had given instructions to the fourth respondent to entertain the sale deeds presented for registration, in respect of the properties comprised in certain survey numbers in Morai village, only after obtaining the `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai, and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District. Since, the property, which is the subject matter of sale deed, dated 30.8.2010, is in the list of properties communicated to the fourth respondent, he had refused to accept the said sale deed, which had been presented for registration, without obtaining the necessary `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai, and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District.

8. In the letters bearing reference C.No.26/IGP Crime/CBCID/2010, dated 23.4.2010, and R.C.No.1923/2010/A3, dated 13.7.2010, the Inspector General of Police, Chennai, and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, respectively, have informed that the land, measuring an extent of 167 acres of land in Morai Village, Tiruvallur District had been unlawfully acquired by certain persons and the same is being sold out in plots, without obtaining the necessary approval from the competent authorities. It had also been stated that three criminal cases have been registered in respect of the said land and that the matter is under investigation.

9. It has also been stated that certain instructions had been issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, only with the intention of preventing innocent persons from becoming victims in the hands of unscrupulous elements, who are attempting to make unlawful gains. The instructions had also been issued to prevent further complications in the investigations being made in respect of the properties in question. In view of the public interest involved the Inspector General of Registration had instructed the fourth respondent to register the sale deeds presented for registration, in respect of certain properties in Morai Village, only on the production of a `No Objection Certificate' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai, and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District. As such, it cannot be said that private interests of persons presenting such documents for registration would prevail over the public interest. Such instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registrations, cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or void.

10. It has also been stated that there are many writ petitions pending before this Court, wherein similar issues had been raised, as in the present writ petition, in respect of sale transactions relating to lands situated in Morai Village, Tiruvallur District.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

1) E.R.Kalaivan V. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai (AIR 2010 Madras 18) (DB) and

2) Pandurangan V. Sub-Registrar, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry (AIR 2010 Madras 135).

12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted. It cannot be said that the Inspector General of Registration would not have any authority or power to issue certain directions, in public interest.

13. It is noted, from the records available, that criminal investigations had been initiated, based on the complaints received, regarding illegal alienations of certain properties in Morai village, in Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. It has been alleged that some of the properties in Morai village had been alienated, illegally, by way of forged documents, without having any title in respect of the properties in question. It has also been noted that a few criminal cases had been registered in respect of such transactions. In such circumstances, the fourth respondent had merely asked the petitioner to produce the `No Objection Certificates' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District, for accepting the sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, for registration.

14. Even though the registering authority cannot conduct a roving enquiry, with regard to the title of the properties, which is the subject matter of the sale deed, it would be open to the said authority to be prima facie satisfied about the authority and the veracity of the transactions. Even though Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Rule 55 of the Tamilnadu Registration Rules, 1983, imposed certain restrictions on the registering authority, it cannot be said that such restrictions are absolute and conclusive. If the Inspector General of Registration issues certain directions to the registering authorities, in public interest, in order to protect unwary purchasers of certain disputed properties, it cannot be held that such instructions are, automatically, arbitrary and invalid. In the impugned communication of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, it has been stated that 167 acres of lands in Morai Village had been encroached upon, illegally, by various persons and that the lands are being sold as plots, by forming layouts, without getting the necessary approval from the panchayat concerned.

15. It had also been stated that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had not granted the necessary approval for the sale of the plots. Further, three criminal cases had been registered in respect of the lands in question. Since, the land sought to be sold by way of the sale deed, dated 18.8.2010, is in one of the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned instructions of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, the fourth respondent had asked the petitioner to obtain the `No Objection Certificates' from the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Chennai and the District Collector, Tiruvallur District. As such, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the first respondent in his impugned communication, dated 30.8.2010, which had been issued in public interest, cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal and void. Since, the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index:Yes/No 19-01-2011 Internet:Yes/No csh M.JAICHANDREN J., csh To

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai-600 004.

2. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

3. The Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Avadi Sub-Registration Office, Avadi, Chennai-600 054.

Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.22985 of 2010 19-01-2011