Skip to content


Elephant G. Rajendran Advocate Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWP No. 19566 of 2015
Judge
AppellantElephant G. Rajendran Advocate
RespondentThe Chief Secretary Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai
Excerpt:
registration (tamil nadu amendment) act, 2008 - section 22(a) government order - section 22(a) of 2008 act, had notified in terms of government order - court held - question of modifying order prescribed date, or lifting same would be considered once this categorisation was put before us - list on prescribed date. .....coming into force, sub section (2) would prevent registration of instruments of lands converted as house sites without permission for development of such lands from planning authorities concerned. however, the difference is that the proviso excludes the house sites which were already registered as such. we are informed that there are various categories of registrations which are not being made and which in substance do not cover the concern of the court. for example, an illustration given to us was of agricultural land sought to be transferred as agricultural land with an undertaking to use as such, the case where we see no impediment unless there is some other legal impediment. there may be similar such other categories and the various applicants who seek to be impleaded, after some.....
Judgment:

Section 22-A of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2008 has been notified in terms of the G.O dated 20.10.2016.

It is fairly stated with this provision coming into force, sub section (2) would prevent registration of instruments of lands converted as house sites without permission for development of such lands from planning authorities concerned. However, the difference is that the proviso excludes the house sites which were already registered as such.

We are informed that there are various categories of registrations which are not being made and which in substance do not cover the concern of the Court. For example, an illustration given to us was of agricultural land sought to be transferred as agricultural land with an undertaking to use as such, the case where we see no impediment unless there is some other legal impediment. There may be similar such other categories and the various applicants who seek to be impleaded, after some discussion, agree that they will categorise these registrations, so that specific orders may be obtained qua areas of concern where documents are unnecessarily not being registered.

We also put to the learned counsel, instead of large number of people seeking intervention, once categorisation is done by the inter se discussion between them, it can be seen which are those categories which may still require further adjudication or policy formulation by the Government.

Learned counsels state that two weeks` period would be sufficient for them to work this out.

The question of modifying the order dated 08.09.2016, or lifting the same would be considered once this categorisation is put before us.

List on 16th November, 2016.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //