This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order contained in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.47/2009 dated 22nd January, 2009 passed by the second respondent, Sub Registrar, Hosur, whereby the petitioners have been informed of the order passed by the District Collector, Krishnagiri, as it has been decided to acquire the land, not to register any sale deed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that till date, no notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued by the respondents and merely a proposal has been made. In the absence of any specific prohibition under the Act or the Rules, it is not open to the respondents to refuse registration of a sale deed, which is mandatory under
Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
3. In spite of notice issued to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed. However, Mr.D.Sreenivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State relied on the reasoning given in the impugned order for refusal of the registration of sale deed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Admittedly, there is no provision made under the law prohibiting the competent authority to register a sale deed when a proposal has been sent for acquisition of certain lands. Rule 55 of the Registration Rules stipulates the provisions under which such refusal can be made. No such power has been vested with the authorities to refuse registration on the ground of pendency of proposal for acquisition of land.
5. A similar case fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Mattrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam represented by its Secretary, Nochikkadu v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others, 2008-3-L.W.766, and the Court observed that it was at a loss to understand as to how and under what provision of law such a prohibition can be imposed. The only provision under which the prohibition from registration can be traced is Section 22-A of the said Act. It has already been pointed out that no such prohibition has been made by the State under the Registration Act or under the Rules framed thereunder.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court has no other option, but to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 22nd January, 2009 and the same are accordingly set aside. The case is remitted with a direction to the second respondent to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioners 1 & 2 in favour of the third petitioner, if there is no other infirmity.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
ss To
1. The District Collector of Krishnagiri Collectorate, Krishnagiri
2. The Sub Registrar of Hosur Hosur, Krishnagiri District