Arumugam vs The Inspector General of Registration and Others

R. Mahadevan, J—Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.03.2009, in and by which the third respondent directed the second respondent, not to register any document in respect of the land in question.

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a landed property having an extent of 2360 square feet in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, due to financial constraints, the petitioner wants to sell the property and when he presented the document before the second respondent, for sale, he came to know that the document in respect of Survey No. 65, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, could not be registered on account of the impugned proceedings. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings dated 25.03.2009, the petitioner is before this Court.

It is stated by the second respondent that the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai requested the District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivagangai to direct the third respondent herein to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009 and to inform the same to the Registration Department and hence, the order regarding withdrawal of the said memo is awaited by the second respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner''s property is also coming under the said Survey Nos. 65/1 and 65/2. Hence, the second respondent is awaiting further instructions from the Revenue Department in this regard. Hence, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai, by proceedings dated 10.04.2012, has already requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the impugned memo dated 25.03.2009 and to inform the same to the Registration Department. Despite the said order, till today, the third respondent has not taken any steps to withdraw the impugned memo, because of which, the second respondent refused to entertain the document presented for registration. Hence, the learned counsel wants to set aside the said memo.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkaddu Grama Vivasayigal Sangam v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & 3 others [2008 (3) LW 766], wherein at paragraph No. 14, it has been held as follows:

"14. That apart, there is no other provision under which the State Government or the respondents herein can validly issue any directions refusing to register any document for which registration is permissible under the provisions of the said Act. If that be so, it is shocking to note as to under what provision of law or any other authority, the second respondent issued such directions directing the third respondent not to register any sale deed in the villages of Thiyagavalli and Kudikkadu except in favour of "M/s. Cuddalore Power Company Ltd." Any such directions issued by the second respondent and the impugned proceedings of the third respondent based on such a directive of the second respondent clearly infringes the constitutional right of any land owner as a citizen of this country. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings are wholly devoid of merits and are liable to be set aside."

The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the averments made in the counter-affidavit and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

On a misconception that the Survey Nos. 65/1 and 65/2 are related to Government properties, the third respondent, by memo dated 25.03.2009, 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 10.04.2012, requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein and inform the same to the Registration Department. But, till date, the said latter had not been withdrawn, so that the authorities continued refusing registration of the document presented by the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate pointed out that referring to the direction given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, so that the document sought to be registered was not registered. Now, the Government itself requested the District Collector, by letter dated 10.04.2012, to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein and on that score, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

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 second 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.