Thiagarajan vs The Sub Registrar, Inspector General of Registration and Inspector General of Police

K.B.K. Vasuki, J.—On consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

These writ petitions are filed for identical relief for issuing appropriate direction to the first Respondent/Sub Registrar to register the agreement of

sale deed dated 30.04.2010 entered into between the Petitioner and the original owner of the property and to release the document. The cause of

action for filing these writ petitions arises by reason of refusal of the registering authority to receive one sale deed in respect of the survey number

514/27C in Morai Village presented by one Kalpana for registration.

All the three Petitioners herein have entered into separate agreements for sale in respect of few survey numbers in Morai Village and the

agreement are reduced into writing on 30.04.2010 and the Petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions before the documents are

presented for registration on the apprehension that the documents for agreement of sale entered into by them are likely to be returned without

registration by the registering authority.

In support of their contention, the Petitioners produced the copy of the letter dated 24.03.2010 addressed by the Inspector General of Police,

Crime, Guindy to the Inspector General of Registration department to the effect that the survey numbers in question situated in Morai Village are

the subject matter of land grabbing cases in Cr. Nos. 122/2009, 6/2010 and 7/2010 pending on the file of the Chennai Suburban, CCB and no

document in respect of these lands are to be entertained for registration till the completion of the investigation by the CCB.

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who is appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 would strenuously argue that the Petitioner

has no locus-standi to come forward with this writ petition for the relief before approaching the registering authority for processing the document

for registration and the police authority is empowered to pass suitable communication to the registering authority for not entertaining any document

for registration in respect of the lands covered under criminal proceedings till the completion of the investigation.

I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides.

This Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised on the side of the learned Additional Government Pleader. The survey numbers

covered in these three writ petitions, the particulars of which are separately furnished by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the land which

is the subject matter of check slip dated 30.04.2010 of the first Respondent are situated in the Morai Village and the apprehension of the

Petitioners that the documents in respect of the lands are not likely to be received for registration is justified in the light of the communication to the

Inspector General of Registration.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Inspector General of Police has no authority to issue such communication to

the registering authority and the same is also not binding on the registering authority. The power to register the document vested on the registering

authority is available under the self contained code as such the registering authority has no authority to refuse to receive any document presented

for registration before the same.

Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader wants to take shelter under the copy of the injunction order passed by this Court in M.P.

Nos. 1 to 1 of 2009 in W.P. Nos. 21877 to 21879 of 2009 which is still in force as per which the registering authority is restrained from

entertaining any kind of document in respect of the disputed land situated in few S. Nos. in Morai Village.

However, the cursory look at the copy of the order dated 27.10.2009 would reveal that the subject matter of the document of agreement of

sale entered into between the Petitioners herein are not covered under the injunction order passed by this Court.

That being the factual position, this Court is of the view, that Petitioner may be permitted to present their agreements of sale dated 30.04.2010

relating to the property in question before the first Respondent and the first Respondent shall on receipt of the same register and release the

document subject to the relevant provisions of Registration Act and Stamp Act. The whole exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

With these observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.