Allowed

Sagaya Mary, v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Oct 2015WP/26526/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a communication directing registration authorities not to accept deeds. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry under the Pondicherry Registration Rules and register documents if legally admissible. The court held that executive instructions cannot override the Registration Act. The petition was di

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication set aside; respondents directed to conduct enquiry under Rule 54 of Pondicherry Registration Rules, 1969 and register documents within six weeks.

Sagaya Mary, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 06.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.26526 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶7

Sagaya Mary
2. Revathi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Government of Puducherry,
Karaikal - 609 602,
2. The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001,
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Su8b-Registrar,
Karaikal - 609 602. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
Memorandum bearing No.7143/CK/A3/2014 dated 7.8.2014 on the file of
the 1st respondent and the Order dated 11.08.2014 on the file of the
3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd
respondent to accept and register the Sale Deeds and other documents
executed and presented by the petitioners in respect of the land
bearing R.S.Nos.150/1A and 150/1C, situated in Kottucherry village,
Karaikal and measuring in total 0.70.80 HAC before him.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.T.P.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.A.Tamilvanan,Govt.Advocae (Pondicherry)

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by a decision of this Court in Pandurangan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Reddiarpalayam, ((2007(1) CTC 641), wherein, the communication issued by the District Collector, Pondicherry to the registering authority was set aside in the following manner: ''26. In the decision in Kailash v. Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Indore (AIR 1985 MP 12) relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Registering Officer is not bound by any instructions issued by the Collector to the SubRegistrar. In paragraph-16 of the said judgment, it was held as follows :-

¶12

"16. The appellate order in the case of Yeshwantsingh (M.P. No. 59/84) makes a reference to certain executive instructions issued by the Collector, Indore in pursuance to which the Sub-Registrar had refused registration of the document. Firstly, no such instructions have been placed on record, even assuming them to be so, the Registration Act does not confer any such power on the Collector, of any district to issue any such instructions prohibiting the registration of documents. The respondent No. 1 while purporting to act in the discharge of his statutory duties has to exclude such instructions, which have no foundation in law. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the respondent No. 1, while refusing to register the document on the basis of some instructions from the Additional Collector, was certainly not acting in accordance with law. There could be no executive instructions contrary to law nor can such instructions have any overriding effect on the statutory provisions of law. It is painful to note that in fact of this Court's direction the appellate order dated 25-2-1983 (in M.P. No. 59/84) should seek justification for refusal to register the document on the basis of such direction from the Additional Collector." 27. It is well settled that Statutory Rules cannot override express provisions of the Statute and Executive Instructions cannot override either of the two.

¶13

Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication of the third respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to examine any document, if and when presented by the petitioner for registration, within the frame work of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

the Rules issued thereunder, taking note of the above observations. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.''

¶16

Therefore, the impugned communication, by which the 1st respondent has asked respondents 2 and 3 not to register documents presented by the petitioners is hereby set aside. However, it is well open to respondents No.2 and 3 to exercise the power under Rule 54 of the Pondicherry Registration Rules, 1969 by conducting an enquiry in this regard. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that 13 similar documents have already been registered at the instance of the petitioners, it is a matter, which can be looked into by the respondents.

¶17

In the result, the orders impugned are hereby set aside and consequently respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to conduct enquiry under Rule 54 of the Pondicherry Registration Rules and pass appropriate orders and take appropriate steps within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
dt:13/10/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
usk
To
1. The District Collector,
Government of Puducherry,
Karaikal - 609 602,
2. The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001,
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Su8b-Registrar,
Karaikal - 609 602.
+1 cc to Government Pleader cum Public Prosecutor
(Pondy) sr.54526
+1 cc to Mr.T.P.Manoharan, Advocate, sr.54361(28/10/2015)
W.P.No.26526 of 2014
ad(co)
aa14/10/2015

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sagaya Mary, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagaya Mary, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvarajan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Selvarajan Vs the District Revenue Officer

B.Ganesh Prabhu Vs United Bank of India

Mrs. R.Ramamani, Vs the Branch Manager

J.M.S. College of Education, Vs The Registrar

A.Ganesh Vs The Registrar