HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
CHEMMALA ASSAINAR HAJI – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA – Respondent
WA/169/2017
Ordinances - Land Registration - Article 213 - The court ruled that the Governor's repeal of the Malabar Land Registration Act via ordinance was invalid because it was not laid before the legislature, violating constitutional processes, thus affirming the applicability of the 1895 Act.
Fact of the Case:
Writ appeals were filed against the dismissal of petitions seeking land registration under the Malabar Land Registration Act, alleged to be repealed by an ordinance. The court examined the legitimacy of the ordinance's enactment and its compliance with constitutional requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ordinance was not laid before the legislature as required by Article 213, rendering the repeal invalid and maintaining the applicability of the Malabar Land Registration Act, 1895.
Issues: Whether the ordinance repealing the Malabar Land Registration Act was valid without being placed before the legislature, and the effect of the ordinance on ongoing registration applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that for an ordinance to be valid and carry the same effect as a law, it must adhere to constitutional mandates including being laid before the legislature; failure to do so nullifies its legal effect.
Final Decision: The writ appeals are allowed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of March 2022 Shaji P. Chaly, J.
The writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.3808/16 and 12664/16 respectively whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that since the Malabar Land Registration Act , 1895 is repealed by Ordinance No.18 of 2005 dated 3rd December 2005, the applications submitted by the writ petitioners to register their lands in terms of Act, 1895 cannot be granted and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the statutory authority are in accordance with the law. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3808/16 has sought to quash Ext.P9 order dated 5.1.2016 issued to the petitioner under Right to Information Act whereby the petitioner was informed that the , 1895 is repealed by the ordinance as specified above and therefore, further action in the application submitted by the petitioner can only be done as per the directions of the Government in the matter. In W.P.(C)No.12664/16, the petitioner/appellant has sought to quash Exts.P6, P7 and P8 orders dated nil, 10.8.2015 and 8.4.2015 respectively whereby, the petitioner was informed that the , 1895 was repealed and therefore, no action can be taken in the application submitted by the said petitioner, till such time appropriate directions are received from the superior authorities of the Government. Case projected by the petitioners basically is that the respondents have failed to accept basic tax in respect of a property in possession of the petitioners on the basis of appropriate registered documents. According to the petitioners, the properties in question were classified under the category 'un-assessed land under the provisions of the , 1895'. On the basis of the provisions of the Act 1895, application was filed for registering the properties as per the provisions of Act, 1895. Various aspects in respect of the properties and the entitlement of the appellants to secure registration are all narrated in the writ petition. However, we are not going into the details of those aspects because the authority passed the impugned orders and the learned Single Judge were of the opinion that the Ordinance No.18/2005 was issued by the State Government in order to repeal the obsolete enactments and the Ordinance was intended to operate only for a temporary period; and since the repeal of the Act by Ordinance was intended to be for all times, the expiration of the Ordinance would not revive the Act. Therefore, it was held that the effect of an Ordinance in the nature of Ordinance 18/2005 introduced solely for the purpose of repealing the obsolete enactments, would not become inconsequential merely because the procedure contemplated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India are not satisfied, being a short term statute, in view of the proposition of law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose and others [ AIR 1962 SC 945 ]; T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., [(1985) 3 SCC 198] and State of Haryana v. Amar Nath Bansal [(1997) 10 SCC 700].
Accordingly, it is held as follows by the learned Single Judge : “6. Section 2 of the Ordinance has repealed 102 original enactments and 595 amendment enactments. Section 3 of the Ordinance provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, any reference of the said Act in any existing enactment in force in the State shall be construed as Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said enactments are by virtue of the said section amended accordingly. Section 4(1) of the Ordinance provides that the repeal by this Ordinance of any enactment shall not affect any other enactment in which repealed enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to and this Ordinance shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequences of anything already done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.