Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Baskaran Kanakasabai (entrepreneur)     02 August 2014

Registration deficiency syndrome- chapter 6

  Registration Deficiency Syndrome- chapter 6  
    Injustice per se  
  In a typical RDS-strain2(SN)-substrain 1(RLA) case (e.g., The Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme case), in Tamilnadu,  
  the relevant Govt/Acquiring authority in general and the relevant LAO & SR in particular are guilty of composite statutory 
  negligence in failing to comply with 2 dozen  rules of law( in a country governed by rule of law!). The details of the  
  violations, violators, the acts and omissions comprising such violations, their effects and the victims are as follows:  
  Violation Act/omission violator/s
1 sec.3 of ToPA, 1882 failure to impart notice to all as defined by law in respect of land under acquisition Acquiring Authority,SR
2 sec.88(2) & (3) of the Regn. Act, 1908 failure of the LAO & SR to register the document executed by him/her L AO & SR
    in respect of the land under acquisition  
3 Article 14, of the Indian Constitution failure to give equal treatment and equal protection of laws to Acquiring Authority
     different citizens who are landowners without any discrimination.  
4 Article 7 of the UDHR failure to give equal treatment and equal protection of laws to "
     different citizens who are landowners without any discrimination.  
5 Article 300-A Arbitrary deprivation of a person of his property , in the process flouting Acquiring Authority,SR
    24 rules of law, inspite of clear caveats in place.  
6 Article 17(ii) of the UDHR ditto as above "
7 TNRR 11(1)(d) failure to file the RLA as required by law SR
8 TNRR 21(ii) failure to present the RLA for registration as required by law LAO
9 TNRR 90(ii) failure to endorse such RLA as required by law SR
10 TNRR 114(ix) failure to cross-reference the RLA as required by law SR
11 TNRR 116(a) failure to make crucial notes in the indexes in respect of SR
    the acquisition as required by law  
12 TNRR 116(b) ditto as above SR
13 TNRR 143 failure to provide a complete list of all acts and encumbrances  SR
    in respect of  the acquisition proceedings affecting the property  
    in question as required by law.  
14 TNSO 664 refusing to register inspite of official caveat in that regard SR
15 TNSO 902 failing to sign as required by the order. SR
16 TNSO 917 failing to take special care in the preparation of indexes SR
    inspite of crystal clear warning inscribed in the order as to  
    what harm wil happen in case such care is not taken  
17 TNSO 918(a) failing to adhere to related instruction to do such  SR
    indexing without any delay  
18 TNSO 927(ii) failing to follow instructions in respect  of entering the  SR
    notes in respect of communications relevant to the   
    acquisition proceedings.  
19 TNSO 927(iii) failing to include the crucial entries relating to the  SR
    communications in respect of the acquisition proceedings  
    in the encumbrance certificates issued in respect of the   
    lands under acquisition.  
20 TNSO 929(p)(i)(2) failing to index the names of the persons whose rights are  SR
    affected by the award under the LA Act both as claimants  
    and executants  
21 TNSO 929(p)(ii) failing to index the name and designation of the collector SR
    or Court or Revenue or other officer who /which executed  
    the award as executant  
22 TNSO 929 (p) (iii) failing to index the name of the person or body or department  SR
    of the Government (and not simply 'Government' (Arasu)  
    for whose bendfit the lands may be acquired as claimant.  
23 TNSO 940 (a), (b), (c )  failing to index the RLA as prescribed SR
24 TNSO 993(d) failing to provide certified copy of the Return of lands acquired SR
    under the LA Act filed under Rule 11(1)(d)  
  (In respect of RDS cases pertaining to states other than Tamilnadu, the corresponding State Registration Rules and S.O.s apply.)
  Effect of the violations:    
  violations 1 &2 vital info about the acquisition proceedings withheld from the potential buyer of notified land,
    from the relevant SR and from the world at large.  
  violations 3 &4 the subsequent buyer is deprived of his land of which he/she is the registered owner, without a notice
    u/s 4(1), a hearing u/s 5A and a compensation u/s 11 of the L A Act, and also he is denied
    other benefits which are otherwise afforded to other notified persons and his locus
    standi to challenge the state action in depriving him of his property itself is questioned.
  violations 5 & 6 the subsequent buyer is deprived of his hard-earned property arbitrarily by flouting
    two dozen rules of law.  
  violations 7 to 12,15 vital info about the acquisition proceedings withheld from the potential buyer of notified land,
    from the relevant SR and from the world at large.  
  violation 13 instead of reflecting in the EC applied for, the details of the acquisition proceedings pending
    behind the relevant land, providing a misleading Nil EC, contrary to law and thereby causing 
    catastrophic economic injury to the buyer who buys the relevant notified land.  
  violation 14 instead of directing the official instructing to refuse registration on relevant notified lands to  
    seek legal redress and querrying him as to why he failed present for registration the RLA as
    required by law, refusing registration of transactions by the subsequent buyer and thereby
    freezing the transferability of the title  and  asset value of the land of the subsequent buyer.
  violations 16 to 23 causing  the effective concealment of the acts and encumbrances related to the acquisition
    proceedings pending behind the notified land and practically misleading the people 
    who apply for an EC, by issuing Nil Ecs. Also failing to extinguish the title of the notified / intersted
    person and failing to create a title/right in the name of the acquiring authority/ requisitioning body
    and effectively failing to trigger the transfer of property  
  violation 24 self-contradicting and self-exposing  action by the SR by refusing to register transactions
    on lands on which nil Ecs have been issued, citing that the land already remains acquired
    under the LA Act and expressing inability to provide certified copy of the relevant RLA
  violations 1 to 24  constitute absolute composite Statutory Negligence  of the severest order resulting in the deprivation of property
  of the subsequent buyer, against rules of law and provisions of the Constitution and the UDHR.  
  Violators: In all the 24 instances listed above, the violators are none other than the Acquiring Govt in general and the relevant
  SRs and LAOs in particular.    
  Victims: The victims in all the 24 instances of violations listed above, are none other than the subsequent buyers who ultimately
  suffer the great economic injury of getting deprived of their valuable properties unlawfully in fact but as if legally for the eyes of the
  world. The present investigative presentation will , I believe , lay bare the relevant truth.  
  The RDS cases, like the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme  case, the Chennai Petro case and practically everyone of the possibly
  thousands of similar cases throughout India in the  past 65 years are glaring examples of composite, chronic and multiple statutory
  negligence on the part of the Acquiring government and its relevant officials with unchallengeable documentary evidence in 
  substantiation of their acts and omissions supra. Byt yet, while facts remain so unexposed till recently, throughout the relevant Indian 
  substantiation of their acts and omissions supra. Byt yet, while facts remain so unexposed till recently, across relevant Indian Courts
   the relevant violators have never been questioned about the violations supra and contrary to  logic, the relevant acquisitions  have 
  been held valid and the alienations held void, depriving  arbitrarily thousands of innocent persons of their properties .Adding insult upon
  injury to the victims, their locus standi  itself is questioned by the violators and the Courts. Is this not Injustice per se?  Is this not a mockery
  of Blackstone's Golden Ratio? Is it not time to reopen all relevant cases, ascertain the facts and reverse all such relevant erroneous judgments?
  Beyond all the 24 violations supra, what more legal wrongs should have been done to subsequent buyers to qualify them for locus standi to 
  challenge the relevant acquisitions.?    
  At this instance, I am reminded of the words of Mr.Justice Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court:  
  "Whenever decision of one court are reviewed by another, a percentage of them are reversed. That reflects a difference in outlook 
  normally found between personnel comprising different courts. However, reversal by a higher court is not proof that justice is
  thereby better done. There is no doubt that if there were a Super- Supreme court a substantial proportion of our reversal of State
  Courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
  May I appeal hereupon to the Hon.Supreme of India to examine this presentation, and if the subject is found right,  to withdraw all RDS cases
  pertaining to all High Courts of India, and dispose of all cases by itself , reversing the judgments in favour of the innocent and rightful
  subsequent buyers under Articles 137 and 139A of the Indian Constitution, to avoid multiple and prolonged litigations in this regard and ensure
  speedy delivery of Justice to the large number of  affected citizens.  
  Sincerely,    
  In the interest of Justice and in pursuit of redress for the victims of RDS,  
  Baskaran Kanakasabai,    
  Social Activist and Logician    
  N.B:    
  Chronic and repeated Negligence when remaining undetected for decades leads on to  delivery of imperceptible injustice, because
  over time the society tends to mistake such prolonged negligence for a settled unwritten law and the related erroneous judgments 
  as 'justice as usual'. But the victims can neither forget the trauma nor pardon the perpetrators because of the magnitude of their injury.
  Justice can be delivered to the victims only upon appropriate review, reversal, and thus redress, without anymore delay.  
   As an isolated incident, an act of negligence or omission by  an officer of the Govt is comprehensible. But if such similar omissions happen in the
  world's largest democracy and with the largest lawyer population, continuously for many decades, acquisition after acquisition and if the legal/
  judicial community of the world is a silent witness to this iceberg of injurious statutory negligence, something must be seriously wrong 
  somewhere. Therefore, may I call upon the relevant authorities to act without any further delay to eradicate this syndrome supra.
  At this juncture, it will be pertinent to refer to  a few popular views on omission or negligence and related scenario:  
  James 4:17English Standard Version (ESV)  
  17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.  
  Dracano Sapien: "He who has the ability to act on an injustice, but who stands idly by, is just as guilty as he who  
  holds the knife"    
  Martin Luther King:" In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends"  
  In Catholic teaching an omission is a failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and  
  freely, it is considered a sin.    
  Abbreviations and short forms used in this chapter:  
  ToPA: Transfer of Property Act, 1882    
  Regn.Act:The Registration Act, 1908.    
  UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights  
  TNRR: TN Registration Rules, 1949, made u/s 69 of the Regn. Act, 1908.  
  TNSO: TN Registration Department Standing Order  
  RLA: Return of Lands Acquired under the LA Act, 1894  
  LA Act: Land Acquisition Act, 1894    
  LAO: Land Acquisition Officer    
  SR: Sub-Registrar    
       
       
  End of part-6    
       


Learning

 1 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     03 August 2014

If you are fighting for a common cause, file a PIL before the high court seeking remedy.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register