P.Gnanguru v. Pondicherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19.11.2007C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.34002 of 2007P.Gnanguru.. Petitioner-Vs.-1. The Union of India, The Office of Regional Registration of Stamps, rep. by its Chief Secretary, to Government of Pondicherry, Puducherry – 1.2. The Inspector General of Registration, Puducherry.3. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret Sub-Registrar's Office, Jawahar Nagar, Boomiyanpet, Puducherry – 605 005... Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rdrespondent to return the sale deed dated 13.12.1999 P.No.222/99forthwith.For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian. For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugesan Senior Counsel for Mr.Vijay Anand, GA(Pondy)- - -O R D E R This writ petition is filed for a direction against thethird respondent, the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret to return the saledeed dated 13.12.1999 in P.No.222/99 after completing theregistration formalities.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased apiece of land in Re-Survey No.31/14 of Reddiar Palayam Village,Puducherry from its lawful owners under a sale deed dated13.12.1999. The said sale deed duly engrossed in the requiredstamp papers and presented for registration before the thirdrespondent on 13.12.1999 and the third respondent has alsoreceived the document and collected the registration charges ofRs.482/- and issued a receipt and assigned P.No.222/99.Thereafter, when the petitioner contacted the third respondent, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he was informed that there are some defects in the valuation andtherefore the matter will be referred under Section 47-A of theStamps Act and they will issue a notice to the petitioner.However, the petitioner has not received any notice. In thesecircumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writpetition.3. It is seen that the document was presented in December1999 and was kept pending by the third respondent for more than7 years without any justification at all. Even if there is anyenquiry under Section 47-A of the Act, the petitioner iscertainly entitled for notice at the time of enquiry. 4. Mr.T.Murugesan, learned senior counsel appearing forthe respondents submitted that the third respondent, SubRegistrar, Oulgaret has passed an order dated 12.11.2007 refusingto register the document on the basis that the land is coveredunder Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling on Land) Act,1973 and a Notification was issued under Section 17 (1) of thesaid Act and published in the Gazette on 06.05.1982. It isfurther stated in the said letter that the proceedings fordetermination of the surplus and retention area is still underprocess and excess land which is to be acquired by the Governmentunder Section 17 has not yet been determined. The registeringauthorities has also insisted for 'No ObjectionCertificate' from the appropriate authorities and the 'NoObjection Certificate has not been produced. In view of thesame, the third respondent has passed the subsequent order dated12.11.2007.5. The applicability of The Pondicherry Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 in respect of theproperty like this came up for consideration before this Court inW.P.No.32472 of 2006 and a learned Single Judge of this Court byan Order dated 08.03.2007 set aside the order of the authoritiesnamely the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, passed under the PondicherryLand Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 and directedthe Sub Registrar to register the document. This Court has alsoheld that after the re-classification under the Pondicherry Townand Country Planning Act, 1969, from agricultural use toresidential use, it is doubtful that the Land Reforms Act appliesto such case. Further this Court has held that after publicationis effected under Section 17 (1) of the Act which was on11.11.1981, the authorities has not proceeded to implement thesame for over 26 years and in such circumstances, there is noright on the part of the authorities to restrict parties toalienate the property by the petitioner. Referring to Section 22of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land)Act, 1973, the learned Judge of this Court has held that there ispower on the part of the Government in proceeding with theacquisition in respect of excess land after registration. It isalso relevant to point out that under Section 17 of the Act, forthe purpose of taking over possession of the excess land, theGovernment have certain powers to do so. Taking intoconsideration, the relevant aspect and considering Sections 22(2)and 22(3) of the Act, which confer certain powers for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government even after registration to proceed with acquisition ifit is an excess land that has been sold, the Government wasdirected to register the sale deed effected.6. Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe respondents would submit that as against the said Judgment,the Government has preferred an appeal and the same is pending.7. I have heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Murugesan, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the respondents.8. A reference to Section 22(1) of the Act certainlycreates a bar for the purpose of registration of documents inrespect of properties which comes under the excess ceiling area.In the above said Judgment, the said publication under Section 17of the Act has been set aside and under such circumstances, thequestion which remains to be considered is whether inspite of thesaid setting aside of the notification under Section 17, theGovernment has got power under Sections 22(2) & (3) of the Actand can still proceed with acquisition in respect of excess land.In any event, as suggested by the learned Senior Counselappearing for the respondents as against the Judgment of thelearned Single Judge a writ appeal is pending and the result isawaited.9. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view thatas on date there is no bar for the third respondent to registerthe document. The third respondent has returned the documentunder the pretext of finding the correct guideline / market valueunder Section 47-A of the Act which is totally arbitrary andillegal on the part of the third respondent. In view of thesame, the writ petition is allowed with a directed tothe third respondent to register the document. Now that thethird respondent has passed an order dated 12.11.2007, refusingto register the document, the petitioner shall re-present thedocument and on receipt of the the re-presented document, thethird respondent shall register the document in accordance withlaw. Further it is made clear that the registration shall besubject to the final decision of the writ appeal which is statedto have been filed by the respondents and also subject to therights of the Government which is available under Sections 22(2)& 22(3) of the Act as well as other provision of the Act. Nocosts.kksd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Chief Secretary, The Office of Regional Registration of Stamps, Government of Pondicherry, Puducherry – 1.2. The Inspector General of Registration, Puducherry.3. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret Sub-Registrar's Office, Jawahar Nagar, Boomiyanpet, Puducherry – 605 005.+ 1 cc to the Senior G.P cum Senior PP for Pondicherry SR 68259+ 1 cc to MR. R. Subramanian, Advocate SR No. 68091SR/20.11.2007W.P.No.34002 of 2007