The constitutionality of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 was upheld, establishing that legislative provisions to prevent fraudulent transfers are valid and necessary for public policy protection.

JUDGMENT:

(Alok Aradhe, J.)

(i) BACKGROUND :

The REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”) was amended by the State Legislature by Act No.4 of 1999. Section 22A of the Act was inserted by Act No.4 of 1999 in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The aforesaid provision reads as under:

22A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy:- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under subsection (1) is applicable.

2. The State of Rajasthan had also enacted a pari materia provision namely Section 22A which was inserted by Rajasthan Amendment Act No.16 of 1976, in the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. The validity of the aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata : (2005) 12 SCC 77. The Supreme Court held that the expression “public policy” used in Section 22A by Rajasthan Amendment Act No.16 of 1976 was vague and uncertain and does not provide guideline to the delegate and suffers from vice of excessive delegation.

3. The validity of Section 22A of the Act incorporated by the State Legislature in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was also challenged in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch. A Bench of this Court, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Basant Nahata (supra), struck down Section 22A of the Act as applicable to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment rendered by the Bench of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court, as the SLP preferred by the State Government was dismissed.

(ii) FACTS:

4. Thereafter, the State Legislature enacted Act No.19 of 2007, by which again a new provision namely Section 22A was inserted in the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908.

5. In this batch of writ petitions, validity of Section 22A of the Act as incorporated in the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 vide A.P.Amendment Act No.19 of 2007 with effect from 20.06.2007 is under challenge. Therefore, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, facts from W.P.No.9141 of 2009 are being referred to.

6. The petitioner vide sale deed dated 19.11.2017 purchased the land measuring Acs.3.10¼ guntas in survey Nos.674, 714 and 715/A situate at Devarayamjal Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) from one P.Suseela. According to the petitioner, since 1955, the subject land is a patta land held by the vendors of the petitioner and their predecessor.

7. The petitioner presented the aforesaid sale deed for registration. However, the same was not received for registration. Thereupon, petitioner filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.21545 of 2007 in which by an order dated 26.11.2007, a Bench of this Court issued a direction to the authorities to receive the document as per the provisions of the Act and passed necessary orders. Thereupon, Sub Registrar, Shameerpet by an order dated 18.02.2