(Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more appropriately one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 not allowing registration of sale deed dated 16-3-2012 vide P No.14/12 of property Door Bearing No.280/7245/7. 8-8-466 (old) New No.8-20 total extend 2160 sq. feet Gandhi Road Chittor, consequently direct the respondent allow the registration of said property.)
The petitioner intended to purchase an item of immovable property bearing No. 8-8-466 (old) and 8-20 (new) at Gandhi Road, Chittoor. A sale deed executed in his favour on 16.03.2012 by the owners of the property was presented for registration before the 1st respondent. The document was assigned a pending number and registration thereof was deferred. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent deferred the registration of the document on the basis of a communication received from the Commercial Tax Officer-I, the 3rd respondent herein. According to him, the 3rd respondent intended to proceed against the properties of M/s Rayalaseema Jute Mills, Chittoor for recovery of arrears of sales tax and that at one stage, he passed an order of attachment against property bearing No. 18-1-205, High Road, Chittoor. He contends that no order of attachment was passed against the properties sought to be purchased by him and that the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to register the document is untenable.
The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that he received a specific communication from the 3rd respondent on 27.01.2012 to the effect that the premises that is sought to be purchased by the petitioner is being demolished by the legal heirs, on the death of the owner thereof and since the deceased owner was the Managing Director of M/s Rayalaseema Jute Mills Limited, the registration of documents in relation to the said property be refused. He has also filed the copies of some documents.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents 1 and 2.
The registering officer is under obligation to process the documents presented before him, if the requirements as to payment of stamp duty and registration charges are complied with. It is no part of his duty to verify the title of the vendor or the capacity of the purchaser. Where, however, specific prohibition against registration exists, be it in the form of order passed by the competent Court or a provision of law, the registration can certainly be refused. For instance, Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as amended through Act 19 of 2007, prohibits registration of documents pertaining to the properties owned by the government, assigned lands or the properties owned by the religious institutions. Registration of documents in respect of such properties can certainly be refused. Further, if a Court of law passes an order of injunction prohibiting alienation of an item of property, registration of documents in relation to such property becomes untenable.
In addition to the two categories referred to above, there may be instances where an authority of the State passes an order of attachment, in exercise of the power under any specific provision of law. For instance, under the Revenue Recovery Act, attachment can be affected by the Recovery Officer before the property is brought to sale. Once an order of attachment is brought to the notice of the registering authority, he is at liberty to refuse the registration. The authorities of the Commercial Tax Department are also conferred with the power to affect attachment of properties, under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover arrears of tax.
The record placed before this Court discloses that the 3rd respondent did exercise the power to attach the properties held by M/s Rayalaseema Jute Mills Limited. An order to that effect was passed on 05.09.2011 in respect of the property bearing No. 8-1-205. However, no such order of attachment was passed as regards the property, which the petitioner proposed to purchase. In his letter dated 27.01.2012, the 1st respondent has simply referred to the fact that the owner of the house, who incidentally is the Managing Director of the company, died and that the premises are locked. He ultimately stated as under:
“Now the above residential house is under demolition and some one wants to purchase the same. I therefore request not to alienate the above said property, and any other properties possessed by the defaulters or their legal heirs until they can produce clearance certificate from this office.”
Howsoever laudable the object of the 3rd respondent may be to protect the interests of the State, he cannot prevent transfer of the property except by issuing an order of attachment in exercise of the power under the Revenue Recovery Act.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to complete the process of registration of the document presented by the petitioner, unless any order of attachment was passed by the competent authority in exercise of the power under any statute. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of.