page7
relevant State/ IGRwould be by deault, guilty of chronic statutory negligence for not complying with sec.69(gg) of the Regn. Act, 1908 and consequently with sec.3 (explanation 1) of ToPA, 1882)
- Did you register the document relating to land acquisition(in question) as required by TN Registration Rules 11(1)(d), 90(ii), 114(ix), 116(a), (b) and byTN Registration Standing Orders 902,917,918(a),927(ii),927(iii),929(p)(ii),929(p)(i)(2),929(p)(ii),(iii),(iv) &940(a),(b),)c) &(d and issue Encumbrance Certificates as required by Rule 143, containing the complete details of the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to the relevant land under acquisition?.
( in respect of other states corresponding state registration rules and standing orders would apply) e.g.,YES NO
Kerala & Orissa:16(d),29(iii),105(iii),127A(i)(ix),138(b),171
A.P:13(1)(d),25(ii),93(ii),(115(ix),118(a),118(b), 143
Maharashtra and Gujarat: 10(1),39(1),39(3).32.33,31(1) ?
Karnataka: 17(1)(b), 40(ii), 40(iii).102(ii),204,123(i).123(ii),126(xii)151
Pondicherry: 12(1)(d),23(3),90(2),112(9),114(1),114(2), 138
And so on. If any State/UT has no corresponding registration rule in effect, relevant/State IGR would be by deault, guilty of chronic statutory negligence for not complying with sec.69(gg) of the Regn. Act, 1908 and consequently with sec.3 (explanation 1) of ToPA, 1882.
- Sec.3 (Explanation 1) of ToPA, 1882( to constitute notice to third parties, especially, the BFPs(bonafide purchasers) and the world at large)
- Section.2 (1)(0) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986Annexure3
- Articles 14,21 & 300-A of the Indian Constitution
- Articles 7,17(ii) & 28 of the UDHR
An answer ‘Yes’ is tantamount to compliance with the relevant law./rule(and has to besubstantiatedby producing documentary proof in Court).; an answer ‘No’ is tantamount to outright non-compliance..
contd.....,
