BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14/11/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.No.9239 of 2007 Maria Baburaj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 2.The Sub Registrar, Melapaalayam, Tirunelveli - 5. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent's impugned G.O.Ms.150 Commercial Taxes dated 22.09.2000 in No.II(2)/CT/1024(e)/2000 and the consequent order of the second respondent's memo dated 08.03.2005 in Na.Ka.No.277 of 2005 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to register the lease deed dated 18.05.2005 executed by Kajamohideen in favour of the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Sankara Subramaniyan ^For Respondents ... Mr.SO.Paramasivam :ORDER
A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this writ
petition would run thus:
2. The petitioner when attempted to get the lease deed dated 18.05.2005
registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Melapaalayam, the second
respondent herein, refused to register the lease deed by citing G.O.Ms.No.150,
Commercial Taxes dated 22.09.2000 and the second respondent’s memo dated
08.03.2005. Hence, the petitioner prays for quashing the Government Order and
memo concerned on the ground that those two directions emerged consequent upon
the amendment to Section 22A of the Registration Act brought about by the Tamil
Nadu Government. However, Section 22A of the Registration Act is ultra vires the
constitutional provisions.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned
Government Order empowers the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the
document on the ground of public policy. The memo issued by the second
respondent dated 08.03.2005 would contemplate a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from
the Wakf Board. The petitioner would further submit that even though the
property had nothing to do with the Wakf Board, yet the second respondent issued
such a direction based on the Government Order, which contemplates certain types
of documents could be got registered only after getting No Objection certificate
from authorities concerned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on decisions of
a Division Bench of this Court in Captain Dr.R.Bellie and another Vs. Sub-
Registrar ((2007) 3 MLJ 1025) which emerged based on the Honourable Supreme
Court decision rendered in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata (2005
(4) CTC 606), would develop his argument to the effect that the impugned
Government Order and the memo issued by the second respondent should be struck
down.
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid two Judgments that
amendment to Section 22A of the Registration Act as brought about by the Tamil
Nadu Government was struck down as unconstitutional and as such the impugned
Government Order and the impugned memo also are having no legs to stand. Since
already the Division Bench passed orders to that effect, there is no necessity
for me to once again probe into it and pass orders afresh. I could therefore
record and declare that the effect of the Division Bench Judgment, is of such a
nature, that they nullified the impugned Government Order as well as the
impugned memo.
7. During the pendency of the writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.9957 of 2005
dated 17.10.2005, the following interim order was passed:
“There will be a direction to the second respondent to register the documents
subject to the result of the writ petition, in view of the order passed in
WPMP.No.1041 of 2004 in W.P.No.139 of 2004.”
8. Subsequently, on 25.01.2007, the order dated 17.10.2005 made in
W.P.M.P.No.9957 of 2005 was made absolute. It appears as on date, the
petitioner has already got his relief. Unless the document which was ordered to
be registered during the pendency of writ petition is against any fresh
provision of law or any other fresh Government Order, the order already passed
during the pendency of the writ petition shall hold good.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
svki
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.
by the Secretary,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Melapaalayam,
Tirunelveli – 5.