Revenue Sites Registration cannot be rejected or refused by the Sub-Registrars
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice B.V. Nagarathna passed the order while allowing petitions filed by C. Ramachar and others, who had questioned the circulars issued by the government on April 9, 2009 and April 3, 2012 banning registration of certain types of properties,(Revenue Sites) including revenue sites and gramathana sites, and imposing conditions for registration.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday declared that a sub-registrar cannot assume the powers of a court or an authority to come to the conclusion that a transaction is prohibited under a particular enactment and thereby prohibit its registration. Terming that the government has no power to deny registration of documents listed under Registration Act as the apex court in 2005 had set aside such laws enacted by many States, including Karnataka, the Bench said that there is machinery for invalidating the transfer of immovable properties in violation of the law, including penal provisions under different laws.
6 responses to “HIGH COURT PERMITS THE REGISTRATION OF REVENUE SITES AND GRAMATHANA SITES”
http://www.moneylife.in/article/beware-your-housing-society-land-might-just-have-been-stolen/46271.html#.VwMZ8FXVfSo.facebook
An Alert; for more, as shared on Facebook as well.
Apropos of my previous comment, i believe that as an expert law office, you will, as expected of, independently consider and share with your readers/clientele as to how best to avoid or obviate the recurrence of the loathsome buyers’ unpalatable experience in general, and bring about any improvement in the sad state of affairs largely obtaining across the entire nation in particular.
You are suggested to go through the suggestions /advice given, though on a free- of- charge basis, to the aggrieved complainant in the instant case; and consider is there not a better way to handle /direction to follow, to the end of finding a lasting solution, with the least procrastination.
Wish to add that , for such purpose, the reasons stated / the categorical conclusion reached by the HC, following the SC’s cited opinion, adverse to the buyers’ community, should prudently be kept in sharp focus. To be specific and pointed, perhaps, a fool – / safe -proof solution has to be found in agitating for and having the Registry desirably empowered in all respects. And, for achieving that end, if warranted, the requisite amendments might have to be thought of and suitably made by the government in the age old law governing formal ‘registration’ of documents. In the alternative, the same purpose could be accomplished by issuance of directive (s)/ clarification by notification; so as to be binding on the registering authorities, to benefit the buyers’ community remaining aggrieved for decades now.
As off and on being canvassed in legal circles, rightly so, the juristic/ natural law principle of “UPDATING CONSTRUCTION” might come in handy; therefore, would have to be adequately stressed and summoned for help, if so found necessary /unavoidable.
Dear Sir,
Thanks.
We will revert with few guidelines to our readers in safeguarding their interest.
There is no foolproof formula, ultimately, the buyer must exercise caution and conduct due diligent scrutiny before venturing into the act.
EP Team
LET ME QUICKLY CLARIFY: – MY SUGGESTION IS NOT THAT YOU SHOULD TROUBLE YOURSELF TO TRY AND FORMULATE A FORMULA TO BE FOOLPROOF. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS THAT THE REGISTRAR BE EMPOWERED NOT TO BLINDLY GO AHEAD WITH REGISTRATION BUT DO SO ONLY AFTER AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE SATISFYING HIMSELF THAT THE DOCT. IS NOT ‘INCOMPLETE’ IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT; BUT IS NOT SO DEFICIENT AS WOULD CAUSE ‘INJURY’ 9IRREPARABLE DAMAGE) TO THE BUYER’S LAWFUL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS. FOR INSTANCE, PRESENTLY, EVEN THE MOST ESSENTIAL BASIC IT ACT REQUIREMENT OF ‘PAN’ IS NOT BEING TAKEN CARE; ALBEIT THE REGISTRAR, AS MANDATED, OUGHT TO SO TAKE CARE.
IN FACT, IN ONE OF MY SUGGESTIONS (IN WRITING) SENT TO THE ‘HM’ , WRT THE RERA (THEN, AT THE BILL STAGE) , THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT OUT, BUT THE FACT REMAINS, JUST AS SEVERAL OTHER ASPECTS LEFT UNCOVERED SO FAR, EVEN IN THE ACT, THE SAID SUGGESTION IS ONE.
IF I REMEMBER, I HAD SENT TO YOU A GIST OF THOSE WPRT THE TOPIC OF ‘FINAL CONVEYANCE’ (YOU CAN READILY LOCATE IT ON MY BLOG – SWAMILOOK, ON A QUICK SEARCH OF GOOGLE).
Dear Sir,
As per our experience, almost all SR`s demand ID proof, ID proof and PAN. In many cases form 60 is submitted and due to other type of coercion the authorities Register the property. Had the purchaser be diligent, he would definitely submit all of it and register.
Regarding defects, discrepancy and complete docs, it is extremely difficult for the SR to ascertain, as only photocopies or attested copies are presented and might be doctored or manipulated documents. The buyers should exercise caution.
EP Team
Please have my last posted clarification / comment also displayed, for future reference !