@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.@mdashThe petitioner herein contended that he entered into an agreement on 9.7.2004 with one Shankar for the purchase of a vacant land measuring an extent of about 83,200 sq.ft. in R.S. No. 118/1 in Pethuchettipatti village, Karuvadikuppam Revenue village, situate within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar oaf Reddiarpalayam, Union Territory of Pondicherry and the said agreement of sale has also been registered as Document No. 3724 of 2004 in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Reddiarpalayam, but, when the petitioner made enquiries in the office of the first respondent /Sub Registrar, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry in February, 2006, regarding the guideline value of the property, for the purpose of purchase of stamp papers, he came to know about a communication dated 14.11.2005 sent by the District Collector, Pondicherry, instructing the second respondent to issue suitable instructions to the first respondent to withhold the registration of any sale transaction in respect of the lands in R.S. Nos. 117 and 118 of the said village. It is his further contention that he had applied for a loan to the Indian Overseas Bank and that the Bank had formally agreed to sanction the loan and that in view of the impugned communication, he was not able to get the sale deed registered, leading to the cancellation of the provisional sanction of the loan.
2. In these circumstances, challenging the said communication dated 14.11.2005 sent by the District Collector to the second respondent/District Registrar, Pondicherry, the petitioner herein has filed W.P. No. 12577 of 2006 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 8.11.2006, has allowed the said writ petition, resulting in filing of Writ Appeal No. 13 of 2007 by the respondents.
3. At the time of hearing of the said writ appeal, it was brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry that chitta which was obtained in favour of Mrs. Thayalnayagi, the mother of Shankar, who has entered into the sale agreement with the petitioner, in respect of the property situate in R.S. No. 118/1 in Pethuchettipatti, Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village in Oulgarpet Municipal Limit was cancelled and as against which, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 22942 of 2007 and the same is pending on the file of this Court. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) that if the order of cancellation of patta is set aside by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, the writ petitioner can present the document for registration on the basis of the sale agreement. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the sale deed has to be registered on the basis of the chitta granted in respect of other lands situate in the above said survey number in favour of Thayalnayagi. In those circumstances, we have allowed the said writ appeal filed by the respondents/Government of Pondicherry, holding that unless and until the cancellation of patta is set aside by this Court in the above said pending writ petition, ''the respondent/petitioner has no power to execute the sale deed in his favour.''
4. This decision of us is called for review by the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ appeal was allowed on the basis that he is the owner of the property in issue, whereas the writ petitioner was actually the proposed purchaser under a registered sale agreement.
5. Before entering into discussing the other aspects of the case, it must be made clear that in the judgment dated 16.4.2008, our intention was to insist that until and unless the cancellation of the chitta issued in favour of Mrs. Thayalnayagi, mother of Shankar, who has entered into the sale agreement with the petitioner, is set aside by this Court in the W.P. No. 22942 of 2007, the writ petitioner cannot get the sale deed executed in his favour. Further, nowhere in our judgment we have stated that he is the owner of the property. But, it seems, a typographical error has crept into the last part of our judgment. Therefore, the last part of our judgment in para No. 11, reading ''unless and until the cancellation of patta is set aside by this Court in the above said writ petition, the respondent/petitioner has no power to execute the sale deed in his favour'', has to be substituted as follows:
Unless and until the cancellation of patta issued in favour of Mrs. Thayalnayagi, mother of Shankar, who has entered into the sale agreement with the petitioner, is set aside by this Court in the above said writ petition, the respondent/petitioner cannot get the sale deed executed in his favour.
6. Clarifying this issue accordingly, we shall now proceed to discuss the other aspects argued on either side.
7. Since the respondents are heavily relying on Rule 54 of the Puducherry Registration Rules, 1969, as amended by the Notification issued by the Inspector-General of Registration, Pondicherry, dated 2.8.2004, published in the Gazette of the Pondicherry, the petitioner has also filed W.P. No. 19418 of 2008 before this Court, praying to declare the said Rule as ultra vires the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, invalid and illegal. Since both the matters are interconnected with each other, the said Writ Petition No. 19418 of 2008 has been directed to be posted along with this Review Application and common arguments were heard and both these matters are being disposed of by this common order.
8. In W.P. No. 19418 of 2008, wherein Rule 54 of the Pondicherry Registration Rules has challenged, the contention of the petitioner is that the said Rule is violative of the provisions of the Registration Act, which is the parent statute inasmuch as it empowers the registering official to investigate issues of title and linkages in revenue records which are outside the domain of the registering authority in terms of the Act. It has also been submitted that u/s 35, the Registering Officer is required to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and whether the document has been duly executed and the grounds under which he can refuse to register a document are set out in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 35 and therefore, the third respondent cannot list additional grounds of refusal under his rule-making power, when he has not been authorized to do so u/s 69.
9. To settle the controversy, it is necessary to see as to what the impugned amended Rule 54 provides for and therefore, the same is extracted hereunder:
The Registering Officer shall also enquire about the linkage of the executants with reference to the registered holder in the revenue records or court order, if any.
10. The main objective of Law of Registration is to provide a conclusive proof of genuineness of document, afford publicity to transaction, prevent fraud, afford facility for ascertaining whether a property has already been transacted and afford security of title deeds and facility of proving titles in case the original deeds are lost or destroyed.
11. To achieve the above objects, under the Registration Act, 1908, provisions have been made as to how a document has to be registered, when it has to be rejected, etc. u/s 34 of the Registration Act enquiry before registration of a document by the Registering Officer has been contemplated as follows:
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.-
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable u/s 25, the document may be registered.
(2) Appearances under Sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon
(a) Enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to Sub-section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders.
12. The procedure, on admission and denial of execution of a document, has been provided for u/s 35, which is extracted hereunder:
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.-
(1)(a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as directed in Sections 58 - 61, inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine anyone present in his office.
(3)(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead:
Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII:
Provided further that the 44[State Government] may, by notification in the 45[Official Gazette], declare that any Sub-Registrar named in the notification shall, in respect of documents the execution of which is denied, be deemed to be a Registrar for the purposes of this sub-section and of Part XII.
13. A conjoint reading of the above provisions would make it clear that the Registering Authority is required to act in a judicious manner, so as to prevent any fraud being committed by any party, while registering any document. Power has been conferred on the Registrar u/s 68 to superintend and control Sub-Registrars in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate. This balance and check system has been provided for under the Act to achieve the avowed object of the Act, to avoid any fraud being played by any party. The said Section 68 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
Section 68 of the Registration Act: Power of Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrars.
(1) Every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate
(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or\\otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.
14. The power of Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules has been provided for u/s 69 of the Act. Since the main attack to the impugned amended Rule 54 by the petitioner is that the authority has exceeded his rule-making power, the said Section 69 is extracted hereunder for easy reference and further discussion:
69. Power of Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules.-
(1) The Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government, and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents
(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under Sub-section (1) of Section 16-A;
(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly used in each district;
(bb) providing for the grant and renewal of licences to document-writers, the revocation of such licences, the terms and conditions subject to which and the authority by which such licences shall be granted or renewed or revoked, the penalties for breaches of the terms and conditions of such licence, the scale of fees to be charged by document-writers, the exemption of any class of document-writers from the licensing provisions, the conditions subject to which such exemption may be granted, and generally for all purposes connected with the writing of documents to be presented for registration.
(Insofar as Pondicherry is concerned, this clause has been inserted by Pondicherry Regulation 2 of 1977, Section 2 (w.e.f. 1-4-1977).
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized u/s 21;
(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under Sections 25 and 34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by Section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub-Registrars of the books kept in their respective offices u/s 51.
(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 88 may be presented for registration;]
(h) declaring the particular to be contained in Indexes Nos. 1/II, III and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and
(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub Registrars.
(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State Government for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
(emphasise supplied)
15. A perusal of the above Section would make it undoubtedly clear that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has conferred wide powers on the Inspector General to make Rules coping in pace with the time and situation, subject, of course, to the approval of the said Rules by the Government, as has been contemplated under Sub-section (2). u/s 69(1)(g), the Inspector General was empowered to make Rules regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and sub-Registrars. The Registrar is empowered, u/s 68 to superintend and control Sub-Registrars.
16. In the case on hand, in exercise of such powers conferred by Section 69 of the Registration Act, the Inspector-General of Registration, Pondicherry, after obtaining prior approval of the Government, brought in the amended Pondicherry Registration Rules, 1969, which are published in the Gazette of Pondicherry. In the process, the Inspector-General of Registration has exercised the powers conferred on him u/s 69 of the Registration Act and not otherwise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Authority has over-stepped his power in bringing the impugned amended Rule 54 to operation.
17. Such an enquiry contemplated in the amended Rule 54 cannot also be said to be outside the domain of enquiry since the impugned amended Rule is towards achieving the goal of objectives of the Registration Act of preventing fraud in executing the documents and to curb such illegal practices which are rampant now-a-days by the unscrupulous executants. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the arguments advanced contra, on the part of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Since the impugned amended Rule 54 has been brought in by the competent authority i.e. the Inspector General, that too well within the Rule making power conferred on him on such subjects u/s 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, after getting prior approval of the Government and publishing the same in the Gazette, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned amended Rule 54 is intra vires the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, W.P. No. 19418 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, challenging the amended Rule 54 of the Pondicherry Registration Rules, fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
18. Then coming to various aspects urged in the Review Application No. 115 of 2008, in the counter filed by the District Collector, Pondicherry/the third respondent herein before the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12577 of 2006, it has been submitted that they have received a complaint from one Ramasamy, son of Arumugam, residing at Muthialpet, Pondicherry stating that the land in R.S. No. 118/1 of Karuvadikuppam revenue village was acquired by his mother Tmt.Pachaiammal in the year 1962 and subsequently the said property was donated to him and patta was also registered in his name, but, however, the patta was fraudulently changed in favour of one Thaiyalnayagi. It has also been submitted by the District Collector that as per the revenue records, the patta in respect of the disputed property in R.S. Nos. 117 and 118/1 of Karuvadikuppam Revenue village, stood registered in the name of Ramasamy and others, however, an extract of Register of right (chitta) has been fraudulently issued in the name of Tmt. Thaiyalnayagy by the Deputy Tahsildar of Taluk Office, Pondicherry and based on that she is claiming ownership over the property and on verification of the revenue records, it was found that Tmt. Thaiyalnayagy was not included as Pattathar in any revenue records and as such chitta copy was found to be bogus and not genuine. It has also been submitted that the chitta correction has been made by way of tampering the records of the Taluk office and the competent authority, namely the Specified Officer under the Pondicherry Settlement Act, 1970 has issued a show-cause notice to Tmt. Thaiyalnayagi calling for reasons as to why the chitta issued in favour of her should not be cancelled. Now, it is seen that the said chitta issued in favour of Tmt. Thaiyalnayagi was cancelled by the officials and aggrieved by the same, W.P. No. 22942 of 2007 has been filed by one S. Shankar, who is the son of the said Tmt. Thaiyalnayagi, and who has entered into the sale agreement with the present petitioner and the said writ petition is still pending on the file of this Court.
19. When the materials on record established that the impugned action of the District Collector, Pondicherry was pursuant to the complaint lodged by the said Ramasamy, surprisingly, he has not been impleaded as party respondent to the proceedings in W.P. No. 12577 of 2006 by the present petitioner. But, the said Ramasamy was impleaded as third respondent in W.P. No. 22942 of 2007, filed by S. Shankar and it seems he has also filed his counter in the said writ petition. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the said Ramasamy, at whose instance, the impugned communication was addressed by the District Collector, Pondicherry to the Registration officials, would be a proper and necessary party to decide the dispute. But, he was not impleaded as a party respondent to these proceedings, which exhibits the attitude of the petitioner and on this ground alone, the writ petition No. 1257 of 2006 filed by the petitioner ought to have been dismissed. But, however, that point was not considered by the learned single Judge and it seems, nobody has raised this point before the learned single Judge.
20. But, the main hue and cry of the petitioner is that since the Registration is an occupied field under the Registration Act, 1908, the Government cannot issue any executive order, restraining the officials from acting under the Statute. There cannot be any doubt that the registration is an occupied field and the authorities are bound to act in the manner provided and prescribed under the Act.
21. Since much has been argued regarding the communication dated 14.11.2005 sent by the District Collector, to unravel the truth, we shall now extract the contents of the impugned communication dated 14.11.2005, addressed by the District Collector, Pondicherry to the District Registrar, Pondicherry in his communication No. 1004/B2-G-Rev.2005(N):
An enquiry was conducted by the Director of Survey with regard to issue of false chitta copy in favour of Tmt. Thaiyalnayagi in respect of property at R.S. No. 117 and 118/1 of Kanavadikuppam Revenue village, vide patta No. 973 and reported the chitta correction has been made by way of tamper of records of taluk office.
22. The District Registrar of Pondicherry, therefore, instructed to give suitable instruction to the Sub Registrar concerned to withheld Registration of any sale of transaction in respect of land at R.S. No. 117 and 118 of Karuvadikuppam revenue village until further orders.
23. As has already been extracted supra, the objectives of the Registration Act are to avoid fraud and secure the interest of the parties to the documents. u/s 68 of the Registration Act, the Registrar has been conferred with the power to superintend and control Sub-Registrars. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 68, every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or\\otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.
24. Therefore, it seems, the District Collector, Pondicherry, after conducting enquiry and finding that tampering of records in the taluk office has resulted in issuance of chitta in favour of Mrs. Thiyalnayagi and further knowing fully well the powers of the District Registrar provided for u/s 68(2) has addressed the impugned communication to restrain any illegality being perpetrated by anybody, since the District Registrar is competent enough to act or take action on such complaints. When such is the position that the District Collector has only brought to the notice of the District Registrar the factum of chitta correction by tampering of official records, further instructing him to withheld Registration of any sale of transaction in respect of land at R.S. No. 117 and 118 of Karavaikuppam of Revenue Village, it cannot be said that an authority, who has no role to play in the field, has entered into the field and illegally stopped the legal due of the petitioner.
25. But, one thing must be made clear that the District Collector ought not have issued any ''instructions'' to the District Registrar, since he is not empowered so under the Registration Act, but should have only forwarded the complaint and the enquiry report to the District Registrar, further requiring him ''to act in the manner required under law''. This error might have crept into the impugned communication of the District Collector, having regard to the fact that in the administration of the District, the District Collector is superior, particularly in the revenue matters. It would have been a different position if the District Collector himself has directly ordered the concerned Sub-Registrar not to entertain registration of any document. But, in the case on hand, as has already been observed by us supra, the District Collector, knowing fully well the powers of the District Registrar, has sent the impugned communication to the District Registrar, wherein we are unable to find any usurping of power by the District Collector.
26. When the factum of pendency of the writ petition No. 22942 of 2007, challenging the cancellation of chitta issued in favour of Mrs. Thayalnayagi, the mother of the writ petitioner therein Mr. Shankar, who has entered into the sale agreement with the present petitioner, has been brought to our notice, we have ordered that until and unless the said order of the authority is set aside, the present petitioner cannot get the sale registered in his favour.
27. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that entry in revenue records does not confer title on the person, whose name appears in record-of-rights. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would rely on the following judgments:
1.
2.
28. In the first judgment cited, it has been held that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or Jamabandi have only ''fiscal purpose'' i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.'' This judgment has been followed in the second judgment cited above.
29. We have no quarrel with regard to the proposition laid down in the above judgments to the effect that entries in the revenue records confer no ownership rights and the title of the property has to be decided by a competent civil court. But, in the case on hand, falsification and tampering of the official records has been found on enquiry by the District Collector, in issuing chitta in favour of Mrs. Thayalnayagi, resulting in cancellation of the said chitta, leading to filing of W.P. No. 22942 of 2007 by Shankar, son of Mrs. Thayalnayagi, who has entered into the sale agreement with the present petitioner. When the patta for the disputed land lies in the name of the complainant/Ramasamy, the chitta seems to have been fraudulently obtained by Mrs. Thayalnayagi, by falsification and tampering of official records. Therefore, if not enquired properly by the authorities concerned, before registering the documents, there is every possibility of miscarriage of justice, further leading to multiplicity of proceedings.
30. From the materials placed on record, we are able to see that the said Ramasamy, who claims right over the property in S. No. 118/1, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 1566 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif''s Court, Puducherry as against the present petitioner Pandurangan, Mrs. Tayanayaki her son Shankar and three others, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and/or creating encumbrance of any kind over the property and also from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In the said suit, I.A. Nos. 4735 of 2006 and 4891 of 2006 were filed by the defendants 5 and 6 and 2 to 4 respectively under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to reject the plaint and by the order dated 20.2.2008, the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry has rejected the plaint. We have not been informed as to whether any revision has been filed by the plaintiff therein before the upper forums of law and if so, with what result.
31. Based on this fact, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that as of now, there cannot be any problem for the Registering officials to register his document. We are unable to affix our seal of approval for this argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in view of the pendency of W.P. No. 22942 of 2007 and further in view of absence of any material to show that the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry has attained finality.
32. Therefore, we find no illegality or factual error in the judgment passed by us on 16.4.2008, except the typographical error pointed out and clarified by us in Para No. 5 of this judgment.
33. In view of what has been discussed supra, subject to the clarification rendered by us in Para No. 5 of this judgment to the last lines of Para No. 11 of our judgment dated 16.4.2008, in all other respects, the Review Application No. 115 of 2008 fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
W.P. No. 19418 of 2008 also, for the elaborate reasons offered supra, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
