Title: Consideration and passing of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2000.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, we take up item No. 18. Shri Arun Jaitley.
… (Interruptions)
THE MINISTER OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF SHIPPING (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): Sir, I beg to move:
“That the Bill further to amend the Registration Act, 1908, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, be taken into consideration.”
It has been noticed both by the Central Government and the State Governments that in relation to the Registration Act, there is no uniformity all over the country. Some State Governments have amended the law. One of the provisions of the Registration Act relating to sale of immovable property has been that properties are sold without proper documentation merely under agreements, and in part performance of those agreements, possessions are handed over and they become effectively the final title documents. These documents are not required to be registered throughout the country. Some States have made their amendment. Wherever they are not required to be registered, it leads to States’ losing a large amount of revenue on stamp duty.
The purpose of this Bill is the following that in whichever cases the possession is handed over along with all agreements to sell, the registration will be compulsory.
The second issue that had arisen was that property transactions all over the country could be got registered in the four metropolitan cities in India. Therefore, a large number of cases used to evade by only registering properties from all over the country in four cities. Now, it is intended to be confined to the places where it is to be registered.
The third effect is that barring presidency towns, they will only register properties relating to those towns and not transactions all over the country.
The fourth effect is that an enabling provision for electronic and computerised documentation at the Registrar’s Office is sought to be created. There is also a requirement of fingerprints and photographs of both the seller and the buyer.
This matter was referred to departmentally-related Standing Committee. The Standing Committee, in fact, improved upon the earlier Bill by suggesting that photographs not only of the seller but also of the buyer must be there so that frauds in relation to the transactions were not there. The effect of this Bill, therefore, would be that there will be uniformity all over the country. The properties will be required to be registered in their State rather than transactions where people can be deceived because nobody buying a property in one part of the country will go to Mumbai and Delhi to check up whether it is registered there or not. The registration will also imply payment of stamp duty because a large part of the State’s revenue was being taken away. In fact, one of the Ministers from Bihar, who deals with this, came to me today to suggest that the State is losing a large amount of revenue and this should be done as far as the entire country is concerned.
In addition to this, there are two corresponding changes that will be required to the Transfer of Property Act and the Stamp Act.
I may mention that the Stamp Act is a State subject. Therefore, the amendment which we make to the Stamp Act is that at the stage of agreement to sell, because it requires compulsory registration, ninety per cent stamp duty is payable; at the time of sale deed, the balance 10 per cent will be payable. This is intended to stop the leakage of the stamp duty as far as the State is concerned. But because it is a State subject, the parliamentary jurisdiction will only be to the Union Territories. Therefore, the amendment to the Stamp Act will only be an amendment that will apply to the Union Territories. Then, all States would have to follow up by respective amendments, if they so desire, to the State Stamp Acts.
With these observations, I move that the Bill be adopted by this House and approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Motion moved:
“That the Bill further to amend the Registration Act, 1908, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, be taken into consideration.”
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CHANDIGARH): Mr. Chairman, Sir, as the hon. Minister pointed out, over the years, there has been a widespread practice of transferring immovable property in one form or the other without getting it registered. This was for a variety of reasons.
Two prominent of those were, restriction by the various State Governments or the Administration on transfer of property allotted to a person by a Development Authority or some similar authority for a number of years. A person who got a property allotted from that Development Authority was not entitled to transfer it for a number of years for any reason whatever, including the financial constraints in the family. These may compel a person to transfer the property, but since the law forbids that transfer, people have resorted to this practice of GPA.
Now, when we have a Bill like this before us, it was imperative for us to go into the genesis of the problem. That, somehow is not the subject of the hon. Minister, but those problems or issues have not been tackled with.
My first point here is that when the Government was wanting to bring about this amendment, which is, of course, a welcome measure, the first thing that the Government should have done was to have called the meeting of the Chief Ministers, which was called, to have discussed in detail to do away with those archaic laws. There was a time when the Government considered that it had the right over the transfer of property for a certain number of years. But now with the liberalisation that we are talking of, such retrograde provisions, I should say, should be done away with. If a person is able to get a house allotted to him from any authority today, what should really stop him from selling it tomorrow if he wishes to sell it off? That is the first thing that I wanted to point out.
The second and that has been our normal experience, is the high incidence of stamp duty. We have seen that one particular piece of property has been transferred not once but a number of times by a general power of attorney repeatedly. Why? Because every transaction would otherwise entail a heavy stamp duty. Since the hon. Minister says that this matter, the amendment, which he is now incorporating is primarily directed against such transactions in the Union Territories, I would give example of my Union Territory.
Union Territories come directly under the administration of the Government of India. The amount of stamp duty fixed in Chandigarh is exorbitant. They take the example of Punjab. Punjab had once raised it to 20 per cent and so. We followed suit. Punjab has come down, but we will not. It is essentially, as I have seen with my experience, that it is high incidence of stamp duty which keeps people back from getting their property registered and they resort to measures like getting it transferred on power of attorney.
These are the two things, which I think, the Government should have done immediately to ensure that people do not resort to such practices. The hon. Minister should create a congenial environment for the people to come and opt for transfer based on , what is to some extent, genuine or reasonable stamp duty . We should see why people are really evading that.
Since, this amendment has been made, I certainly would urge upon the Government, whether the Minister of Law or Minister of Urban Development, to take this matter seriously and to ensure that the genesis of the problem is knocked out. Simple amendment to law would not really help and people may find other means, but this certainly is a good amendment to deter people from taking recourse to these measures where you do not get the power of attorney or agreement registered and somehow get the property transferred. Now, they are putting a levy of 90 per cent of the normal stamp duty in case of this agreement as such. This would certainly help to an extent.
The other thing, which I, of course, must welcome is the measure to put an end to that prevalent practice of getting the transfers registered in the metropolitan cities as also Delhi here. We have seen over the years that land mafias, which have cropped up in different parts of the country, buy and sell property without the original owner knowing anything about it. Somebody else would step in his shoes, maybe after the death of the person who owned some property, he dies in intestate, leaves back some property, some other people lay claim to it getting into some sort of collusion or some agreement with anti-social elements and get the land registered in Delhi. That would cause and lead to many difficulties. That has certainly been done away with.
Sir, the Minister did explain that this present Amendment Bill is limited to the Union Territories. … (Interruptions)
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Only the stamp part … (Interruptions)
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL: Sir, I wonder why this was missed out earlier when the Bill was presented. I never see this thing happening in the case of Shri Arun Jaitley. I have had experience where Bills were brought to the Parliament, and even if we tried to point out some mistakes, the arrogant and haughty bureaucrat who had framed the Bill would just not accept it and it had to be passed. I do not know how this has crept in. If I do not sound technical about it, such an amendment in the form of an amendment to the Bill by the Minister even goes beyond the scope of the Bill as such. I am not really raising an objection to that. But, certainly care should be taken that such things do not happen and we come with one flawless piece of legislation, as we have had from the hon. Minister, and he should live up to his reputation.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I find that you are quite eager to see that I sit down. Well, I do.
Sir, I support the Bill.