Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
R. Sampath - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18660 of 2013
Decided On : 05-11-2020
REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS - ROLE OF SUB-REGISTRAR - REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION - GROUNDS - SUB-REGISTRAR'S DUTY TO ASCERTAIN VENDOR'S NAME IN REVENUE RECORDS - REQUIREMENT OF DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 81A OF KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT AND 11E SKETCH - PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY - LACKADAISICAL CONDUCT - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.6 dated 16.08.2012 refusing to register the instrument which had been admitted for registration on 08.11.2004 and a mandamus directing respondent No.6 Sub-Registrar to register the instrument. The land in question was partitioned among family members in 2004, with respondent Nos.3 to 5 receiving portions. They executed a sale deed in favor of the Petitioner on 08.11.2004, which was presented for registration the same day. The registration was kept pending due to separate RTC and mutation in the name of the sellers not being produced. In 2012, the Sub-Registrar refused registration on the grounds that the vendors' names were not found in the records, the Petitioner failed to declare himself as an agriculturist, and a 11E sketch was not provided.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Sub-Registrar is not required to register any document presented for registration. The document must comply with the requirements of the Registration Act and the Registration Rules. If the document does not comply, the Registrar can refuse registration by a reasoned order to be recorded in Book II. 2. The requirement under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act must be fulfilled in order to proceed with registration. 3. The Sub-Registrar is required to ascertain from the records if the vendor's name is found mentioned in the previous title deed and/or the revenue records relating to the property. 4. The Sub-Registrar can go through and appreciate the document submitted for registration to ascertain whether the requirements under the Registration Act have been followed or not. 5. In the present case, the refusal of registration by the Sub-Registrar was proper and correct. The Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the Registration Act, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 6. The Petitioner's lackadaisical conduct disentitles him from any remedy at the hands of the Court.
Issues: 1. What is the role of the Sub-Registrar when a document is presented for registration? 2. Would a Sub-Registrar be required to register any document presented for registration? 3. Would the requirement under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act be required to be fulfilled in order to proceed for registration? 4. Is the Sub-Registrar required to ascertain from the records if the vendor's name is found mentioned in the revenue records before proceeding with the registration of the property? 5. Can the Sub-Registrar go through and appreciate the document submitted for registration in order to ascertain whether the requirements under the Registration Act have been followed or not? 6. In the present case, is the refusal by the Sub-Registrar to register the document on the ground that the vendor's name was not found mentioned in the revenue records, the failure of the Petitioner to declare himself as an agriculturist while purchasing an agricultural land and the non-production of 11E sketch be a good ground for refusal of registration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Sub-Registrar's role is to ensure that the document presented for registration complies with the requirements of the Registration Act and the Registration Rules. If the document does not comply, the Registrar can refuse registration by a reasoned order to be recorded in Book II. 2. The requirement under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act must be fulfilled in order to proceed with registration. 3. The Sub-Registrar is required to ascertain from the records if the vendor's name is found mentioned in the previous title deed and/or the revenue records relating to the property. 4. The Sub-Registrar can go through and appreciate the document submitted for registration to ascertain whether the requirements under the Registration Act have been followed or not. 5. In the present case, the refusal of registration by the Sub-Registrar was proper and correct. The Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the Registration Act, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 6. The Petitioner's lackadaisical conduct disentitles him from any remedy at the hands of the Court.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.6 dated 16.08.2012 bearing No.RGN.KR.PURA 237/12-13 (Annexure-L) as also for a mandamus directing respondent No.6 Sub-Registrar to register the instrument which had been admitted for registration on 08.11.2004.
2. Facts according to the Petitioner
2.1. The land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 34 guntas belonged to the family of Maheshwarappa and Munivenkatamma who had six sons viz., M.Jayaram, M.Ramesh, M.Subramani, M.Nagesh, M.Venkatesh and M.Raghavendra.
2.2. There was a registered partition effected between the family members on 03.01.2004 in terms whereof the portions of the land measuring 34 guntas in Sy.No.37 of Sigehalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District had fallen to the share, land measuring 12 guntas as per Schedule 'A' Item No.3 of the said partition deed had fallen to the share of M.Nagesh (respondent No.3), 11 guntas as per Schedule 'F', Item No.3 of the said partition deed had fallen to the share of M.Venkatesh (respondent No.4), 11 guntas as per Schedule G, Item No.3 had fallen to the share of Sri.Raghavendra (respondent No.5).
2.3. Subsequent to the registration of the partition deed, the same was also reflected in the encumbrance certificate.
2.4. Thereafter, respondent Nos.3 to 5 had approached the Tahsildar (respondent No.2) to effect the necessary entries in the revenue records. Provisional entries were made by issuance of Form No.21 as per Annexure-E. However, the said provisional entries remained unconfirmed, and the process of certification was not completed. Even though there was no objection to the application filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5, an endorsement came to be issued in Form No.12 on 05.01.2005.
2.5. As per family tree available Maheshwarappa had nine children. However, partition deed was entered into only in respect of four children hence, the other children not being parties to the partition deed, the entries sought for was not made.
2.6. In the meanwhile, said respondent Nos.3 to 5 are stated to have executed a sale deed in favour of the Petitioner on 08.11.2004 which was presented for registration on the very same day.
2.7. An endorsement came to be issued rejecting the application made by the vendors to mutate their names. Aggrieved by the endorsement issued in terms of Form No.12, the Petitioner had challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.No.37279/2011, which came to be disposed of by order of this Court on 19.03.2012 directing the Petitioner to place all the supporting documents before the Tahsildar - respondent No.2 to consider the same and if there are no complicated question of title and if respondent No.2 is satisfied that the Petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question, a mutation in his favour was required to be done. However, if the Tahsildar - respondent No.2 was of the view that there were complicated questions of title involved or that the Petitioner's vendor himself was not the owner of land in question, then the Petitioner was required either to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner or a suit for declaration of title before the competent Civil Court.
2.8. Subsequent thereto on 13.08.2012, the Petitioner was issued with an endorsement by Thasildar - respondent No.2 stating that since an order had already been passed, the same could not be reviewed and as such, the Petitioner was required to file an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act.
2.9. Thereafter, one more endorsement came to be issued on 25.08.2012 stating that mutation entries had already been carried out in the name of one Sri. Rakesh S/o Kodandaramaiah as per M.R.No.22/06-07 and as such, Thasildar - respondent No.2 could not take up the matter and the remedy of the Petitioner was only by way of an appeal under Section 136 (2) of the Act (Annexure-J).
2.10. Subsequent thereto, by way of an endorsement d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
