Baskaran Kanakasabai (entrepreneur) 08 December 2011

The flaw in the law- latest development

The following copy of my letter to DoLR, MoRD, GOI, contains details of the latest developments with regard to my presentation tiltled "The flaw in the law" posted in the forum section since April 2010 spreading over 40 parts.

I have identified over a dozen Acts of India in which the 'registrability flaw'(and the complications associated with that flaw) that I originally discovered in the LA Act 1894, is remaining embedded amounting to an absolute conceptual lacuna in terms of registrability of instruments related to immovable property in India.

copy of letter:

From

Baskaran Kanakasabai,

G4,Subhashree Avenue,

Kalanivasal,

Karaikudi-630002

The Director,

DoLR, MoRD, GoI,

New Delhi.

Sub: “The Flaw in the Law”/ “Same Flaw in many other Indian Acts”

Ref: The Public Notices and respective drafts posted in the DoLR website in respect of the LARR Bill 2011,Land Titling Bill 2011 & the Proposed amendments to the Regn. Act, 1908.

Sir,

First of all I wish to convey my sincere thanks to you and all other officials and authorities concerned who have contributed to the decision-making process that resulted in incorporating in the above-mentioned Bills, some of the solutions I proposed in my presentation titled “The Flaw in the Law”.

The solutions of mine that you have incorporated are:

1. It is the responsibility of the LAO to compulsorily register the notification u/s 4(1), the declaration u/s 6 and the award u/s 11 of the LA Act, 1894, with the concerned RoD or the Land Titling Authority(within 30 days from issuing such instruments). (Please note that my original solution is to stipulate such compulsory registration, right on the day of notification itself, because registration of alienation/other transactions could happen any moment after notification if it remains unregistered even for those 30 days. Kindly refer to my communication with the Singapore Land Authority(copy of which is available with the President’s Secretariat, New Delhi).In Singapore, on issue of the LA Notification, the land records are updated instantaneously, preventing the possibility of registration of any transaction on notified land even after a few seconds after issue of such notification.)

2. It is the responsibility of the RoD to refuse registration of any transaction on LA notified lands, right from the day of registration of such notification( and not after 17 years after notification as cited in my presentation, in the case of the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme)

The solutions you have not yet incorporated are:

1. Freezing the LA Act 1894 immediately because of its crucial flaw, till the amendments to rectify the flaw, come in to force and issuing a cease and desist order to all State and Central Governments from applying the flawed LA Act, 1894 till the flaw is rectified.

2. Protecting the people affected by the flaw from all possible implications of the flaw by declaring the LA proceedings in force against the people affected by the flaw as null and void.

I request you to ensure that the above-mentioned two remaining solutions are also implemented by interacting with the relevant authorities concerned. Only then, it can be said that justice has been done.

Enquiry in respect of my presentation with special reference to the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme is on in Tamilnadu based on my petition dated 21.07.10 addressed to the CM Cell,Chennai and based on the direction from the Honourable President of India to the Chief Secretary , Tamilnadu, through the IG, Registration, Chennai. I have appeared before the DIG, Regn, Chennai on 19.11.2011 and presented all documents available in support of my representation and with regard to my presentation titled “The Flaw in the Law.”

I also wish to inform you that my continuing research in respect of my “Theory of Registrability” suggests that many more Acts of India are flawed in respect of the same theory. The following sections of the following Acts(of the ones analysed so far till date) involve a notification/declaration/order on immovable properties and such instruments are all “non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, to or in immovable property”. Therefore they too must be specifically listed in the Registration Act as compulsorily registrable instruments. If it is not stipulated so, then registration of transactions on lands notified under those acts also, will happen( as it has probably been going on in India till date) and consequently innocent people who are unaware of such notifications are likely to fall victims to the flaw and the Honourable Courts of India are likely to declare all alienations and other transactions on such notified lands as void, as has been happening in the case of the Flaw in the LA Act, 1894, which is the very subject matter of my very presentation and research.

Therefore may I suggest that a list of such Acts should be annexed to your proposed amendments to the Registration Act, 1908 and a clause added to stipulate that all notifications/orders/declarations under the Acts, as mentioned in that annexure are compulsorily registrable by the respective issuing authorities and that the Registrar should refuse registration of any transaction on any land earmarked by any registrable instrument under any Act listed in the annexure, provided such instruments are registered in his/her Register.

Also kindly note that only after the passing of all your proposed amendments to the Regn. Act, 1905, the LARR Bill 2011 & the Land Titling Bill 2011, the solutions I have suggested and your department has proposed would materialize and not with the passing of any one Bill alone. Because, you have incorporated the solutions piece-meal in all the three bills. As a stand-alone Bill, the LARR 2011 Bill will not serve the purpose.

As you can find out from the drafts, the LARR Bill 2010 talks only of the “Collector completing the exercise of updating the land records upon issue of notification”; only the proposed Land Titling Bill 2011 stipulates that ‘it will be incumbent upon the Collector to register the notification, declaration and award under LA’; Only your set of proposed amendments to the Regn. Act 1905 stipulates that ‘the the registering officer shall refuse to register a document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1)(“opposed to public policy”) is applicable.’

Therefore kindly make sure that all the three bills get passed at a stretch without which the flaw will remain a flaw till all three bills are passed. Alternatively, if you desire to make the LARR 2011 as flawless even as a stand-alone Act, in respect of the registrability flaw( which I discovered and reported), then you must incorporate the two crucial registration rules to the LARR, 2011 itself, i.e.,

1. The LAO shall compulsorily register the notification u/s 4(1), declaration u/s 6 and the award u/s 11(of the LA Act, 1894), with the RoD/Land Titling authority concerned.

2. The Registrar/Land Titling authority shall refuse to register any transaction on any land on which a notification under LA has been registered.

List of other Central Acts of India which are also flawed in respect of failing to stipulate the compulsory registrability of the notification/order/declaration contained in such Acts, with detail of the relevant instrument:

1. The Notification u/s 4(1) of: The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958).

2. The Notification u/s 11(3) of: The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962).

3. The Order u/s 105(1) & 124 of: The Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006).

4. The Order u/s 50 of: The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of 1948) (note the over-ruling sec 58)

5. The Order u/s 6(1) of: The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886).

6. The Notification u/s 7(1) of: The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978) (note the over-ruling sec 40).

7. The Notification u/s 3A(1) of: The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956).

8. The Notification u/s 3(1) of: The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962).

9. The Notice u/s 3(1) (a) of: The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (30 of 1952).

10. The Notification u/s 3 (1) of: The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (60 of 1948).

11. The Notification u/s 4(1) of: The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).

12.The Notification u/s 20A(1) of : The Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).

13.The Declaration u/s 3(1) of: The Works of Defence Act, 1903 (7 of 1903)

14. The Notification u/s 7(1) of: Administration of Evacuee property act, 1950

15. The Notification u/s 4(1) of: Indian Forest Act,1927.

16. The Declaration u/s 3(1) of: The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885

17. The Notification u/s 20(1) of: The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904

Considering the abundance and magnitude of the implications of the registration flaw in the Indian Laws, I would like to suggest that a simple all-pervasive section be incorporated in to the proposed amendments to the Registration Act, 1905 stipulating that “No transaction or order/notification/instrument pertaining to immovable property under any law is valid unless and until it is registered in the books of the RoD/ the Land Titling Authority”.

Since I am already beginning to construe that thousands of people are affected by the flaw for example in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Act 24 of 1958, in just a few towns alone, I do not rule out the possibility of a very mind-boggling number of victims to the flaws in all the above-listed laws, all over the country due to statutory /constitutional negligence unparalleled in history. Therefore, may I suggest that remedial action in war-footing is the need of the hour to contain damage to the society at large.

Sincerely,

Baskaran Kanakasabai

20.11.2011

N.B: I will be available anytime at my mobile(9444001884) or email(kbmadras@rediffmail.com) for any clarification in any respect.

Copies to:

1. The Honourable President of India

2. The Honourable Prime Minister of India

3. The Honourable Chief Justice of India

4. The Honourable Minister for Law and Justice

5. The Honourable Home Minister of India

6. The Honourable Minister for Rural Development, GOI

7. The Law Commission of India