THE DEHOR OF 77A

STRIKING OF 77A :

Recently the High Court of Madras, has ordered sec 77A registration act (TN Amendment )

Registration Act, 1908 for about 116 years , Consolidating with the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.? Which, was shut down by the Madras High court Bench consisting of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice N.Senthil Kumar as it?is unconstitutional violating the? Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 254 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and its operatives ness due to its retrospectivity and the impugned amendment, which is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act without an assent of the President of India, is not valid.?

Originally, Section 22-A was introduced in the year 1997 empowering the Registrar to cancel the registration of any Deed of Conveyance which is against the public policy.? Subsequently, by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2009, Section 22-A was inserted.

ITEM 6 OF THE SCHEDULE :?

The item under, Entry 6 of List III, namely, Registration of Deeds and Document. As? the State does not have legislative competence to introduce Section 77-A and implement the same. The most important,? Doctrine of repugnancy interpreted that, a law covered by an entry in the State List (or an amendment to a law covered by an entry in the State List) made by the State Legislature contains a provision, which directly and substantially relates to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List and is repugnant to any provision of an existing law with respect to that matter in the Concurrent List then such repugnant provision of the State law will be void. Such a provision of law made by the State Legislature touching upon a matter covered by the Concurrent List, will not be void if it can coexist and operate without repugnancy with the provisions of the existing law.??

ISSUES ARISED:?

The important issues arose where , the recitals in a document presented for registration, cannot be simply examined, that such document was fraudulently executed or registered; as the registrar is not?qualified to analyse the legality such document. The question was whether the transaction is fraudulent or a document is forged, requires a high standard or degree of proof that issue such as fraud and forgery cannot be left to be decided by the District Registrar who is not expected to have a judicially trained mind to consider and decide such issues which have serious repercussions affecting valuable rights of parties to documents. In the absence of any procedure, criteria or guidelines to decide such complex issues.?

Secondly, the document where the recitals alone are questioned, considered to be voidable. Necessitating,? the filing of the suit to set aside the particular document and can be cancelled by the Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act.?

Henceforth, exercise of power under Section 77A must be restricted to registration of documents in contravention to Section 22-A or 22-B of Registration Act, 1908 and to any other sections to be implied.?

Fourthly, the exercise of such power under Section 77A of the Registration Act being prospective in nature or retrospective in nature, to which the court determined its retrospectivity.?

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES?

The impugned amendment introducing Sections 22-B, 77-A and 77-B to the Registration Act are in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, 254 and 300-A of the Constitution of India neither , no procedural or guidelines have been laid down either?prescribed to the District Registrar defining the powers and functions or the limitations.?

SECTION 77A IS INFIRM?

Section 77-A is incompatible with any Central Law, hence it is likely to be knocked down and repealed under Article 254 of the Constitution, and no judicial jurisdiction can be granted to Executive Authorities. absolute, Section 77-A is liable to be struck down on the ground of excessive delegation with unfettered and uncanalised powers without any statutory guidelines or limitations, being contrary to the fundamental principle that judicial power to decide complicated issues on facts and law resulting in serious legal implications affecting parties' rights cannot be delegated to executive authorities.

Section 77-A is contrary to the scheme of the Registration Act and goes beyond its object and purpose, as it states that the object of document registration is to notify the general public that the document has been executed in order to prevent fraud and forgery and to protect a reliable accurate account of all transactions affecting the title to the property.

case title : M Kathirvel v. Inspector General of Registration and Others