Madras High Court
S.Ponnarasi vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-I on 21 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.6073 of 2021
S.Ponnarasi. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Sub-Registrar-I,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
2.The Executive Engineer/
Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Thirunelveli Housing Division,
Thirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated
01.03.2021 made in Refusal Check Slip RFL/1 No Joint Sub-Registrar
Tuticorin/22/2021, quash the same and consequently directing the first
respondent to register the petitioners document presented on 01.03.2021
in respect of S.F.No.124/1B1A1, Plot No.17 to an extend of 960.3 Sqft at
Sankaraperi village, Tuticorin Taluk and District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugesan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Government Advocate for R1
: Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal
check slip issued by the first respondent dated 01.03.2021, wherein the
petitioner has been directed to get a no objection certificate from the
second respondent and thereafter, present the document for registration.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property stood in the name
of one Josephine Samuel, who had purchased the same, by virtue of a
registered sale deed, dated 19.05.2009. The petitioner and his sister
wanted to purchase this property from the said Josephine Samuel and
hence, they did a legal due diligence and also verified the encumbrance
certificate. When the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner
and his sister on 01.03.2021, the same was presented for registration
before the first respondent. The first respondent has issued the impugned
check slip dated 01.03.2021, refusing to register the document and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
directed the petitioner to get a no objection certificate from the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition
has been filed before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject
property that was proposed to be purchased is plot No.17 in S.F.No.
124/1B1A1, measuring an extent of 960.3 sq. ft. Learned counsel
further submitted that a similar stand was taken by the first respondent,
when the property in Plot Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 were sought to be sold
and the same became a subject matter of challenge before this Court in
W.P.(MD)Nos.23870 and 23871 of 2017. Learned counsel further
submitted that these writ petitions were allowed by this Court, by an
order dated 07.06.2018 and the first respondent was directed to register
the documents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
benefit of the above order will also equally apply to the petitioner. It was
further submitted that even though the property was acquired by the
Government, since the physical possession was not taken, the entire
acquisition has lapsed as per Section 24(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel further submitted that the
impugned check slip issued by the first respondent requires the
interference of this Court and directions must be issued to the first
respondent to register the document.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the second respondent submitted that it is an admitted case that the
property was acquired by the State and the Housing Board was the
requisitioning body. That apart, even the award was passed in the year
1988 and thereby, the property stood vested with the Government under
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel
submitted that once the property stood vested and was handed over to the
Housing Board, no one can be permitted to deal with the property and the
first respondent was perfectly right in insisting for a no objection
certificate from the Housing Board. Learned counsel submitted that the
contention raised to the effect that the proceedings have lapsed is un-
sustainable, since the said declaration has not been sought for by the
petitioner. The learned counsel concluded his argument by submitting
that any sale that takes place after the issuance of the notification under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is void and therefore, the
sale deed that was executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in
the year 2009 is void and non est in the eye of law. It was further
contended that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed by this
Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
first respondent submitted that under Section 22A(1)(i) of the
Registration Act, 1908, where the property belongs to the Government,
the Registering Officer has to necessarily refuse to register the document.
The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the acquisition
had taken place for the benefit of the Housing Board and the property has
vested with the Housing Board and therefore, the petitioner has to
necessarily get the no objection certificate from the second respondent,
failing which, the first respondent can refuse to register the document.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
7. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact
that the property in question forms part of the acquisition proceedings
that was initiated by the Government, on the requisition made by the
Housing Board and which culminated in an award that was passed in the
year 1988. Once an award is passed, the property automatically vests
with the Government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. Thereafter, the title will shift to the Government and the original
owner of the property will lose the title. The petitioner wants this Court
to assume that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed, by virtue of
Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This ground has
been taken by the petitioner on the premise that the possession has not
been taken over. In the considered view of this Court, after the judgment
of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal and others reported in
2020 SCC Online SC 316, and which was subsequently followed by this
Court in K.Saraswathi and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
reported in 2020 (2) WritLR 345, it is mandatory to fulfil both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
conditions viz., taking possession and payment of compensation.
Therefore, the premise on which, the petitioner is claiming that the
acquisition proceeding has lapsed is not sustainable in view of the
Constitution Bench judgment. Even other wise, the acquisition
proceedings getting lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 is not a matter of assumption and it has to be
declared so by the Court.
8. The next contention that has been made by the petitioner is that
the sale deed that was executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner
in the year 2009 was entertained by the first respondent and therefore, the
vendor of the petitioner has the title to convey the same in favour of the
petitioner and his sister. This ground raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner also does not have any legs to stand. Any Conveyance that
takes place after a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
Acquisition Act, 1894, is null and void. This position has been reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India
reported in 2020-4-L.W. 509. In view of the same, the sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
executed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner will be non est in the
eye of law and the vendor cannot convey any title to the petitioner and
his sister.
9. Insofar as the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.
(MD)Nos.23870 and 23871 of 2017, dated 07.06.2018, all these issues
were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge and the only
issue that was projected was that the document was already registered
and it was refused to be returned back. Under such circumstances, this
Court, directed the document to be returned back to the concerned
petitioners. This order cannot be taken as a precedent, since there was no
occasion for this Court to go into the core issue as to whether the vendor
of the petitioner can even register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner
and his sister in the absence of title. After the coming into force of
Section 22A of Registration Act, 1908, with effect from 20.01.2016, the
Registering Officer can refuse to register the document, where it is found
that the property belongs to the Government. In the present case, the
property is vested with the Government and it has been handed over to
the Housing Board and therefore, the first respondent was perfectly right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
in insisting for no objection certificate from the second respondent
Housing Board.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned refusal check slip issued by the
first respondent.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.06.2021
Index :Yes
Internet : Yes
vsm
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
vsm
To
1.The Joint Sub-Registrar-I,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
2.The Executive Engineer/
Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Thirunelveli Housing Division,
Thirunelveli District.
W.P.(MD).No.7964 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD)No.6073 of 2021
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
