Maria Baburaj vs State of Tamil Nadu

G. Rajasuria, J.—A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this writ petition would run thus:

The petitioner when attempted to get the lease deed dated 18.05.2005 registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Melapaalayam, the second

respondent herein, refused to register the lease deed by citing G.O.Ms. No. 150, Commercial Taxes dated 22.09.2000 and the second

respondent''s memo dated 08.03.2005. Hence, the petitioner prays for quashing the Government Order and memo concerned on the ground that

those two directions emerged consequent upon the amendment to Section 22A of the Registration Act brought about by the Tamil Nadu

Government. However, Section 22A of the Registration Act is ultra vires the constitutional provisions.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned Government Order empowers the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the

document on the ground of public policy. The memo issued by the second respondent dated 08.03.2005 would contemplate a ''No Objection

Certificate'' from the Wakf Board. The petitioner would further submit that even though the property had nothing to do with the Wakf Board, yet

the second respondent issued such a direction based on the Government Order, which contemplates certain types of documents could be got

registered only after getting No Objection certificate from authorities concerned.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in Captain Dr. R. Bellie and Dr. Smt.

Seetha Bellie Vs. The Sub Registrar, which emerged based on the Honourable Supreme Court decision rendered in State of Rajasthan and Others

Vs. Basant Nahata, , would develop his argument to the effect that the impugned Government Order and the memo issued by the second

respondent should be struck down.

Heard both sides.

It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid two Judgments that amendment to Section 22A of the Registration Act as brought about by the

Tamil Nadu Government was struck down as unconstitutional and as such the impugned Government Order and the impugned memo also are

having no legs to stand. Since already the Division Bench passed orders to that effect, there is no necessity for me to once again probe into it and

pass orders afresh. I could therefore record and declare that the effect of the Division Bench Judgment, is of such a nature, that they nullified the

impugned Government Order as well as the impugned memo.

During the pendency of the writ petition, in W.P.M.P. No. 9957 of 2005 dated 17.10.2005, the following interim order was passed:

There will be a direction to the second respondent to register the documents subject to the result of the writ petition, in view of the order passed in

WPMP. No. 1041 of 2004 in W.P. No. 139 of 2004.

Subsequently, on 25.01.2007, the order dated 17.10.2005 made in W.P.M.P. No. 9957 of 2005 was made absolute. It appears as on date,

the petitioner has already got his relief. Unless the document which was ordered to be registered during the pendency of writ petition is against any

fresh provision of law or any other fresh Government Order, the order already passed during the pendency of the writ petition shall hold good.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.