D. Dhanlakshmi vs The Union of India (UOI)

M. Jaichandren, J.—The Petitioner has stated that she had purchased a plot measuring about 2400 Sq.ft, in Re-survey No. 230/2, from one

Jilani, wife of G.A. Jabbar, under a sale deed, dated 24.10.2005. When the said sale deed, dated 24.10.2005, had been presented for registration

before the second Respondent, he had refused to receive the said document for registration.

It had been further stated that, on 29.10.2005, the Petitioner had been served with an order issued by the second Respondent, on 25.10.2005,

stating that the lands in question are covered under the land reforms proceedings and there is a specific order issued by the Deputy Collector

Revenue not to effect sale transactions, in respect of the said lands. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that the refusal of the second Respondent to receive the sale deed in

question is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The second Respondent cannot refuse to receive the document, even though it

may be open to him to pass orders refusing to register the said document, after receiving the same. When, similar documents, in respect of the

lands in the same area, had been registered there is no good reason for the second Respondent to refuse to receive the sale deed presented by the

Petitioner for registration.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had placed before this Court an order, dated 8.3.2007, made in the writ petition, in

W. P. No. 32472 of 2006, wherein, it had been stated that even after the registering authority is directed to register the document in question the

rights of the first Respondent government would be well protected, by virtue of Section 22(2) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of

Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973.

Section 22(2) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973, reads as follows:

22(2) (a) If any person makes any transfer, whether by sale, gift or otherwise, of any land in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the

Government may, in the first instance, take possession of land, equal in area to the land which is to be acquired by the Government, from out of the

land held by such person, and where such recovery from the person is not possible, from the transferred.

(b) Where there are more transferees than one, the deficiency of the surplus area shall be made up from each of the transferees in proportion to the

land transferred to them.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had further submitted that the writ appeal filed against the order, dated 8.3.2007,

made in W.P. No. 32472 of 2006, had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 17.2.2010, in W.A. No. 1154 of

2008.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf

of the Petitioner.

In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second Respondent, dated 25.10.2005, is set aside and the second Respondent is directed to

receive and register the sale deed, dated 24.10.2005, presented by the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner filing a declaration in Form-16 of the

Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.