Allowed

M.Maniam v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC16 Oct 2019WP(MD)/19600/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders refusing registration of a sale deed due to potential Ceiling Act proceedings against the vendor. Relying on Pandurangan, the Court held that the registration department cannot be barred from registering documents and set aside the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Both impugned orders were set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

M.Maniam Vs the Sub Registrar — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19600 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.19600 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16061 of 2019

M.Maniam

... Petitioner

/Vs./

The Sub-Registrar,

¶9

Palani Registration District, Keeranur.

¶10

The Sub-Collector, Palani.

¶11

The District Registrar (Administration) Palani, Office of Combined Registration District, 2^nd Floor, Palani. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1098/2018/A5 dated 19.02.2018 and consequential notice of the 1^st respondent dated 27.03.2019 quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to register the pending document P11/2018.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy for M/s.S.Nedumaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel on behalf of writ petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate on behalf of all the respondents are before this Court.

¶16

With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main Writ Petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶17

A 'sale deed dated 14.02.2018' (hereinafter referred to as 'said sale deed' for the sake of brevity) has been presented in the office of the first respondent. This Court is informed that the first respondent is the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar qua property which is subject matter of said sale deed. In the said sale deed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.19600 of 2019

¶20

writ petitioner is the vendee or in other words writ petitioner is the purchaser.

¶21

Registration of said sale deed ran into rough weather owing to a 'communication dated 19.02.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1098/2018/A5' being a communication from the second respondent to the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'first impugned order' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). Vide first impugned order, second respondent has held that certain proceedings are intended to be initiated against writ petitioner's vendor Company under jkpo;ehL epyr; r P h ;jpUj ;jr ; rl;lk ;> 1961 (epy cr;rtuk;gpid mWjpapLjy ;) (Amendment Act 1970 (17/70) (hereinafter referred to as 'Ceiling Act' for the sake of brevity) and on this ground second respondent has directed first respondent to not to register conveyance documents pertaining to land which is subject matter of said sale deed.

¶22

Pursuant to the first impugned order, the first respondent namely the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, passed an order dated 27.03.2019 captioned ',Wjp mwptpg ;G' stating that said sale deed which has been kept as pending document in Document No.P11/2018 cannot be registered and that the same can be taken back by the parties concerned namely, vendee, the writ petitioner and writ petitioner's vendor. This order of the first respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as 'second impugned order' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience.

¶23

Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the first and second impugned orders primarily on the ground that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent to make the second impugned order. This plea is also predicated on the ground that the second respondent cannot direct the first respondent to not to register a document on the ground which has been set out in the first impugned order. To support this sheet anchor submission, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service a judgment / order of this Court dated 08.11.2006 in the case of Pandurangan vs. SubRegistrar, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry and Others reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1440 and passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian as a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court (as his Lordship then was). Most relevant paragraphs in Pandurangan's case are paragraphs 18 and 25, which read as follows:

¶24

18.When the power of Registering Officer himself is so circumscribed by the provisions of the Act, it is not open to the third respondent to issue an instruction to respondents 1 and 2 to withhold the registration of any transaction, as he has no Appellate, Supervisory or Revisional powers over the Registering Officer, under the Act.

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.19600 of 2019

¶28

25.Applying the theory of “occupied field”, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in S.Arunachalam and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) set aside a Government Order, directing the Registration Department not to register the documents relating to sale of certain house-sites, in respect of which an opportunity for objection is given to the Panchayats, Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations.'

¶29

Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits, on instructions, that there has been no further proceedings under Ceiling Act against writ petitioner's vendor though impugned orders are predicated on the ground that proceedings under Ceiling Act against writ petitioner's vendor is in the anvil.

¶30

It is also submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioner on a demurer, ie., without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner, that the respondents do not have such rights to stall registration and in any event, the basis for the impugned orders also cease to exist as there has been no proceedings under the Ceiling Act post impugned orders.

¶31

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent reveals that it has merely reiterated the first impugned order and submitted that registration was refused owing to the first impugned order.

¶32

One aspect of the matter which in the considered view of this Court is of relevance is Section 22-A of the 'Registration Act, 1908' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for the sake of brevity) which came into force on / with effect from 20.10.2016. Therefore, Section 22-A of said Act came into force post Pandurangan's case.

¶33

A perusal of Section 22-A of said Act and principle laid down in Pandurangan's case reveal that there is no overlap or in other words, the powers to refuse registration as contained in Section 22-A do not impact factual matrix of this case. To put it differently, the factual matrix of this case is such that it is outside the ambit of Section 22-A of said Act and it is supported by Pandurangan's principle.

¶34

In this view of the matter, following Pandurangan's principle, both the impugned orders, namely, communication dated 19.02.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1098/2018/A5 and order dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.19600 of 2019

¶37

27.03.2019 captioned ',Wjp mwptpg ;G' are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶42

¶43

The Sub-Registrar, Palani Registration District, Keeranur.

¶44

The Sub-Collector, Palani.

¶45

The District Registrar (Administration) Palani, Office of Combined Registration District, 2^nd Floor, Palani.

¶46

+1 CC to Mr.S.NEDUMARAN, Advocate ( SR-92178[F] dated 16/10/2019 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-92505[F] dated 17/10/2019 )

¶47

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.19600 of 2019 Dated:16.10.2019

¶48

sm MK (24.10.2019) 4P 6C

¶49

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

¶50

4/4

M.Maniam v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Maniam v. the Sub Registrar

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

The Manager/Correspondent Vs the Chief Educational Officer

Mohamed Ibrahim Sait Vs the Deputy Director

M.Murugan, S/O.Madasamy, Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Kuthuptheen, Vs the Chief Educational Officer

Senthilkumar Vs the District Collector

Gnanavel Vs The Tahsildar