AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.
1) State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata,
2) G. Karmegam v. Jt. Sub-Registrar (2008 (1) MLJ 789
3) Captain Dr. R. Bellie and Anr. v. The Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Sulur 2007 WLR 597
4) Pandurangan Vs. The Sub Registrar, The District Registrar and The District Collector,
5) R.G. Rathinam v. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram and Anr. 2009(3) L.W. 890
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.
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.
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.
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.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
1) E.R. Kalaivan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and The Sub-Registrar Registration Officer, and
2) Pandurangan v. Sub-Registrar, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry AIR 2010 Mad 135.
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.
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.
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.
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.