Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
G. Ramachar and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 18939/2009 (GM-ST-RN-PIL) and 14050/2012 (GM-ST-RN-PIL)
Decided On : 18-03-2016
For the Appellant : Jayakumar S. Patil, V.K. Narayana Swamy
For the Respondents: M.I. Arun
Headnote:INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - Sections 22-A, 69 (as inserted by Karnataka Amendment Act, 1976) & Contract Act (9 of 1872), Section 23: [Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, C. J. & B.V. Nagarathna, J] Documents, Registration of which is against public policy - Circular Dated 6-4-2009 issued under Section 22-A in order to prohibit certain transactions from being registered - Held, By the Circular, Dated 6-4-2009 the Sub-Registrar can in no way prevent a document pertaining to a transaction, which is prohibited under various laws from being registered. Once those transactions have taken place, the document pertaining to the transaction are registered under the Act, when the requirements of the Act are complied with. Unless the document pertaining to the transaction is registered, the transaction under various Acts, which are prohibited, namely, transfer of land by sale etc., would not become invalid, as it is only when the document pertaining to the transaction is registered would result in the completion of the transaction by transfer of title and by conveyance. Therefore, merely on an apprehension that a particular transaction may be prohibited under a particular enactment, the Sub-Registrar cannot prohibit the registration of the document pertaining to the said transaction. Rather it is only on completion of the transaction by registration wherever registration is compulsory, that the transaction, prohibited under a particular law, would become null and void. Therefore, even prior to the registration of document pertaining to a transaction, it cannot be presumed that the transaction is prohibited under an enactment and thus, refuse registration of the document.
Further Circular Dated 6-4-2009 prescribes the list of documents, which have to be produced along with documents of transfer at the time of registration. Even the non-production of such documents (other than those documents prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908) cannot in any way prevent registration of transactions, which are null and void under certain Acts. Even if an affidavit is given by the transferor and transferee of land to the effect that there is no violation of any statute in the transfer of land, the said affidavit would not in any way be of any assistance when subsequently it is discovered that there was in fact an infraction of any of the provisions of a statute when the transfer of land took place. Further, at the time of registration of documents pertaining to transfer of land, the Sub-Registrar cannot hold an enquiry as to whether any of the statutes or local laws have been violated. If by transfer of land, there is an infraction of any of the local laws, then the particular laws have the machinery for invalidating the transfer and may also contain penal provisions in that regard. Therefore, prior to the registration of the document, the transaction relating to the transfer of land being incomplete, the Sub-Registrar at that stage cannot prevent the transaction pertaining to transfer of land being completed on the assumption that there may be a violation of any of the local laws.
Further, arguments that the Circular is issued under Section 69 of the Act cannot be accepted in view of the express invocation of Section 22A of the Act in the impugned Circular dated 6-4-2009. The impugned Circular dated 6-4-2009 was quashed.
B.V. Nagarathna, J.
1. These writ petitions are filed in public interest. We have delinked Writ Petition Nos. 7834-7835/2013 from these writ petitions, as those writ petitions are not public interest litigation. Hence, they would be heard separately. In essence, they challenge Circular bearing No. KAME.344.MUNONU/2008 dated 06/04/2009, as being illegal and contrary to law. They have also sought a direction to the authorities in-charge of registration of documents, restraining them not to apply Circular dated 06/04/2009 at the time of registration of documents.
2. According to the petitioners, Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act", for short) is a Central enactment, but the State Government has passed the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Amendment Act" for the sake of brevity) inter alia, incorporating Section 22A of the Act. The amendment Act No. 55/1976 has received the assent of the President on 24/05/1976. Section 22A states that the State Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of document is opposed to public policy. Subsection (2) of Section 22A states, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Section 22A has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [2005 (12) SCC 77], when the Rajasthan Legislature had amended the Act incorporating Section 22A, which is in pari materia with the Amendment Act of the Karnataka Legislature. The impugned Circular dated 06/04/2009, which is made on the strength of Section 22A of the Amendment Act, is also illegal, as Section 22A of the Amendment Act of State of Rajasthan has been struck down and that Section is in pari materia with the Amendment Act passed by the Karnataka Legislature. It is therefore, contended that Circular dated 06/04/2009 prohibiting registration of certain documents by the Sub Registrar is also illegal, null and void. The subsequent Circulars issued under the strength of Section 22A of the Act are also contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, petitioners have sought a declaration to the effect that Section 22A of the Act, Circular dated 06/04/2009 and all subsequent Circulars and Notifications issued pursuant thereto are null and void. In the above context various other circulars and letters/communications issued by the respondent-authorities.
4. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent - State by contending that the impugned Circular dated 06/04/2009 is not made pursuant to Section 22A of the Act, but under the provisions of the respective Central and the State Acts. That certain Central and State Legislations cast a duty on the registering authority to verify documents produced for registration and thereafter, to register only those transactions, which are permissible in law. The impugned circular lists certain transactions the documentation of which cannot be registered as they violate various provisions of Central and State laws. Those laws are Section 21(1) and (4) of the Registration Act; Sections 28, 34 and 45 A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; Rule 3 of Karnataka Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Documents) Rules, 1977; Section 131(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Rule 46(H) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and Section 81-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Section 6 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; Section 8 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991; Rule 114(c) sub-rule (2) Paras (a) and (h) of Income-tax Rules, 1962; Section 192 A, B and C of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
5. The impu
