Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 78 (GAU)

Matilda Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya

2008-02-01

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2008
ORDER T. Vaiphei, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sen, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the Respondents. With the consent of the counsel for both the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that she purchased a plot of land situated at Block 3, Wahingdoh, Shillong, from one Smt. Emnam Massar, by a Sale Deed dated 4.1.2006. On execution of the Sale Deed, the Petitioner took over possession of the demised property along with the title documents from the said Emnam Massar. It appears that one of the son of the Petitioner, namely, Shri Mark E Lyngdoh, was diagnosed with acute Myeloid Leukemia and is undergoing Medical Treatment at Christian Medical College, Vellore, for which she has already incurred a sum of Rs.7.2 lakhs for one cycle of reinduction chemotherapy. Her son was also medically advised to undergo Allogenic Periphera Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (PBSCT) and Allogenic Bone Marrow Transplantation, the cost whereof, according to hospital sources, is estimated at Rs.20 lakhs. To meet this expenditure, the Petitioner approached the SBI, Polo Branch for grant of Rs.20 lakhs by way of loan. The SBI has agreed to sanction the loan amount on condition that the Petitioner submits the Registered Sale Deed as well as the Non-encumbrance Certificate from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner. The Petitioner accordingly approached the Registration Office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, for registration of the land, and was asked to pay a stamp duty of Rs.55,105/- which she duly purchased. She also requested the vendor of the plot in question to execute a fresh Sale Deed, which was again executed on 7.1.2008. When the Sale Deed was presented by the Petitioner before the Sub-Registrar for Registration, who is the Respondent No. 2 herein, refused to register the same on the ground that the signature of the local headman was not obtained. The Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner that she should either obtain the signature of the local headman on the Sale Deed or get a fresh Patta from the Office of the Syiem of Mylliem, Shillong. Her request to the Respondent No. 2 to pass an appropriate order on her application for registration of the Sale Deed in question has not been acted upon till date. Her request to the Respondent No. 2 to pass an appropriate order on her application for registration of the Sale Deed in question has not been acted upon till date. It was on the aforesaid circumstances that the Petitioner approached this Court for appropriate order. 3. Mr. S. Sen, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner drawing my attention to the provisions of the Registration act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1892, forcefully submits that there is no provision thereunder requiring the Sub-Registrar to require the Petitioner to obtain the consent of the local head-man for registration of the Sale Deed and that the Sub-Registrar has thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in not registering the Sale Deed, which is other wise executed in accordance with law. Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that this Court can require the Respondent No. 2 to register the Sale Deed in question if the same is permissible under the Registration Act. 4. From the pleadings of the Petitioner, it is obvious that the refusal on the part of the Sub-Registrar to register the Sale Deed in question appears to be highly unwarranted. I have carefully gone through the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, and also the Transfer of Property Act, which is applicable only in spirit in the State of Meghalaya. The Respondent No. 2 who is a statutory authority appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, is required to exercise his power of registration within the four corners of the law. Nowhere in the Registration Act is the Respondent No. 2 obligated to insist upon the Petitioner to obtain the consent of unauthorised person like the local head-man for registration of the Sale Deed or, for that matter, any deed of transfer which is otherwise duly executed in accordance with law. In other words, if a Sale Deed fulfills all the requirements of law, the Respondent No. 2 cannot refuse registration on the grounds which are not prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This is a case of abdication of authority on the part of the Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register the Sale Deed. The Respondent No. 2 has acted illegally in not registering the Sale Deed presented to him for registration by the petitioner. 5. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. This is a case of abdication of authority on the part of the Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register the Sale Deed. The Respondent No. 2 has acted illegally in not registering the Sale Deed presented to him for registration by the petitioner. 5. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to register the Sale Deed dated 7.1.2008 presented by the Petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three days. The Respondent No. 2 shall pay the cost of this writ petition for causing vexation and unnecessary harassment. 6. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned State counsel for communication to the Respondents by today. Petition allowed.