JOIN USHC strikes down provision that regulates property registration
The High Court has struck down section 22A of the Registration (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1976, which deals with registration of documents that are considered against public policy.
A division bench of Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice B V Nagarathna on Friday quashed the circular issued by the State government on April 6, 2009, and the letter issued by the Secretary of Stamps and Registration and the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps on April 3, 2012.
Section 22A states, “Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy. – (1) The State Government may, by notification, in the official gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.”
One G Ramachar and others had urged the court to restrain the government from applying and incorporating this section and to declare the said circular illegal and unenforceable. The petitioners argued that the said section was against a Supreme Court order and gave arbitrary and unguided power to the State government to declare particular documents as opposed to public policy.
They also contended that in the absence of any enabling provision in the statute, the government had no authority to regulate registration of documents. The government, however, argued that only transactions permissible under law would have registration of documents. The circular helps sub-registrars across Karnataka prevent the registration of illegal transactions, it said.
But the bench wasn’t impressed by the government’s argument. “Merely on an apprehension of a particular enactment, the sub-registrar cannot prohibit the registration of the document pertaining to the said transaction.”
The bench quashed all circulars issued from time to time and struck down section 22A, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Basant Nahata case and the judgment of the High Court’s division bench in the D Pavanesh case.