Date:20/03/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/03/20/stories/2008032058770400.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

High Court quashes notice put up at Sub-Registrar’s office

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has quashed a notice put up at the office of Joint Sub Registrar-II, Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore, and a District Registrar’s letter with regard to considering conveyance deeds on lands at Thiyagavalli and Kudikkadu villages.

Allowing a writ petition filed by the Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Mattrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam, the First Bench, comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, directed the respondents to receive and register all documents presented for registration pertaining to the two villages if they satisfied the stipulations in the Registration Act or any other enactment governing such registration.

The Sangam, represented by its secretary, filed a writ petition stating that the Tamil Nadu government had issued a notification in 1986 declaring that the lands in the two villages measuring 800 hectares out of the total of about 910 hectares were to be acquired for a TNEB thermal power station. A draft scheme was published later, but no steps were taken. Villagers who owned lands in the extent mentioned in the notification dealt with their lands by way of transfer, sale, etc., without any hindrance.

The petitioner’s grievance was that at present certain lands were registered by the Joint Sub-Registrar in favour of a private company, Cuddalore Power Company Ltd. When a person presented a sale agreement, the Joint Sub-Registrar refused to register by referring to the notice displayed at his office as well as by referring to the 1986 G.O. and the letter of the TNEB Chairman.

Following enquiries and a legal notice, the District Registrar, in his letter, informed petitioner’s counsel that the registration authorities had been advised to register only documents in favour of the power company. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the notice and the letter. The Bench said it was at a loss to understand as to how and under what provision of law such a prohibition came to be imposed by the respondents. Any such direction clearly infringed upon the constitutional right of any land owner as a citizen of the country. The impugned proceedings were wholly devoid of merits and were liable to be set aside.