Quality of Justice in respect of most cases of alienation after LA notification in India since 1949

“The Flaw in the Law”- part 47

Punish the law-abiding, diligent and innocent and reward the statutorily-negligent and irresponsible!: Is this the status of justice in respect of most cases of alienation after 4(1) notification in India since 1949 till date?

Plain perusal of the LA Act, 1894 and the Registration Act, 1908 may appear not to be clearly establishing the  flaw in the law in respect of the failure of the Acts in unambiguously stipulating the compulsory registrability of the notification u/s 4(1) of the LA Act. But my recent corroborative analysis of the Registration Rules  framed u/s 69 of the Registration Act, 1908,  by various state Governments in India has revealed evidences in support of my original theory of “The Flaw in the Law”.

1. Various State Governments and the Central Government at various points of time in history after the enactment of the LA Act, 1894 and also probably after the enactment of the Registration Act, 1908, felt the logical lacuna and therefore the practical need in respect of the compulsory registrability of the land acquisition proceedings(because of their indisputable nature of severely affecting the title, right and value of immovable property)in the Book of the Registration Department.

2.  This is proved by the   fact that such State Governments have, ( u/s 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 which empowers the IG, Registration to make rules), framed and enacted Registration Rules for respective states. (e.g, TamilNadu Registration Rules. 1949, Registration Rules(Kerala)1958, A.P Regn. Rules 1960,  Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965,  Pondicherry Registration Rules, 1969). On the part of the Central Government, the Law Commission’s 6^th Report on the Registration Act, 1908, presented in 1957 proves the same fact. Excerpts of the report are enclosed in the annexure provided at the end of this part.

3. Such rules have attempted in various degrees to rectify the flaw in the law by providing for the registrability of the land acquisition proceedings under the LA Act, 1894 through sec. 69 (gg), sec.69(h), 69(2), sec 88(2) and sec-89  of the Registration Act,1908 as follows:

4.  Sec.69: “Power of Inspector General to superintend Registration Offices and make rules consistent with this Act… (gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-section(2) of sec.88 may be presented for registration;

5. Sec. 69(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in index Nos.I,II,III and IV respectively.”

6. Sec.69 (2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State Government for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

7. Sec.88- “ Registration of documents executed by Government officers or certain public functionaries- (2) Any instrument executed by or in favour( … in his favour/ in his official capacity or to sign as  provided in sec. 58) of an officer of Government or any other person referred to in sub-sec.(1) i.e., (a) any officer of Government or (b) any administrator General, Official Trustee or Official Assignee or (c) the Sheriff, Receiver or Registrar of a High court or (d) of the holder for the time being of such other public office as may be specified in a notification in the Official Gazette issued in that behalf by the State Government, may be presented for registration in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under sec.69.

8. 89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed

(1) Every officer granting a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, shall send a copy of his order to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the land to be improved or of the land to be granted as collateral security, is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1.

(2) Every court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1.

(3) Every officer granting a loan under the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884, shall send a copy of any instrument whereby immovable property is mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loan, and, if any such property is mortgaged for the same purpose in the order granting the loan, a copy also of that order, to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property so mortgaged is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy or copies, as the case may be, in his Book No.1.

(4) Every revenue-officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by  public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1.

9. Thus the IG,Registration is supposed to make rules by virtue of the power vested on him(by sec.69 ) to provide for the manner in which the documents executed by any Govt. Officer( in his official capacity as listed by sec.88 & 89)may be presented for registration.

10. Let us examine how each state has handled sec.69, 88 &89  in their respective Registration Rules in order to stipulate the registrability of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

11. Tamilnadu:  Tamilnadu registration rules, 1983, approved by the State Govt u/s 69 of the Registration Act, 1908.(as per notification on page 611 of Part II of the Fort St.George Gazette dated 28.6.1949) (That leaves a 41 year gap between the Act and the Rules and it is yet to be seen as to whether any other registration rules were in place in the mean time)

12. Rule 11(i): A file book shall be maintained in each registration office corresponding with Book 1. In this shall be filed:- (d) returns of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. (e) communications received from officers of other departments intimating the cancellation, modification or rectification of transactions evidenced by papers previously filed.

13. 21.(i) A document for registration other than a document forwarded under section 89 of the Act shall be presented in person, with the fee payable therfor, direct to the registering officer and not to a clerk or peon.

14. (ii)  A document referred to in section 88(2) may be presented through a messenger with a covering letter signed by the Government officer or other person concerned referred to in section 88(1) of the Act.

15. Rule 90(ii): The endorsement of presentation made on a document presented under Rule 21(ii) shall mention the number  and date of the covering letter with which it is presented and the designation of the Government officer or other person concerned.

16. Rule 116(a): On the registration of a document which revokes, or cancels or rectifies an error in or modifies the terms of , a document previously registered in the same class of register book or of a return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or of a document received and filed under Section 89 of the Act, vide Rule 11 supra or  on the receipt of a communication from a revenue officer or from a Court which intimates a similar revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification, a note shall be entered at foot of the entry of the latter document or communication as under:-

17.  “ This document/communication revokes(cancels, rectifies or modifies) the document No…. of 19……. Copied/filed/ the return filed at pages…. Volume…… of book/File Book/File Book1” and at foot of the previous entry or of the document previously registered or filed a note shall be entered as shown below:-

18.  “This document return has been revoked(cancelled, rectified or modified) by the document No. of 19….. copied/document filed/the return filed at pages….. volume….. of book/File Book/File Book1”

19. (b) When the revocation, cancellation , rectification or modification is of a document, relating to immovable property, a corresponding  note shall also be entered in Index II and when it relates to the rectification of any particulars entered in Index I, II, III or IV, a note of rectification shall also be entered in the respective index against the particular item rectified.

20. S.O. 940 (a):- A document received under Section 89 of the Act or return of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act shall be indexed in the indexes of the year of receipt of the document in the registration office.

21.  Rule 143.:  A certificate of encumbrance shall contain a complete list of all acts and encumbrances affecting the property in question.

22. Rule 145 (i): Searches for certificates of encumbrance shall, as a rule, be made by two persons independently of each other, so that the results obtained by one may be compared and verified with those obtained by the other.

23. Rule 146:  A copy shall be retained of each encumbrance certificate issued from an office and shall be filed in a separate file book in which the various certificates will be numbered consecutively in a separate series for each calendar year.

24.   Rule 161: A registering officer will be held liable for any loss to Government which may arise from neglect on his part in the registration of a document, the making of a search or the grant of a copy of a document.

Kerala: Registration Rules(Kerala)1958:

Rule 16: A file book shall be maintained in each Registration Office corresponding with Book1. In this shall be filed: (c)  copies of certificates and orders and instruments received under section 89.

(d) “return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act”(e) communication received from officers of other departments intimating the cancellation,modification or rectification of transactions evidenced by papers previously filed.

Rule 22 (v): The copies in rule 16, shall be in the form prescribed and supplied by the Department.

Rule 29 (i) A document for registration other than copy of a document forwarded under section 89 of the Act shall be presented in person, with the prescribed fees, direct to the Registering officer and not to a clerk or peon.

(ii) A document referred to in section 88(2) may be  presented through a messenger with a covering letter signed by the Government Officer or other person concerned  referred to in section 88(1) of the Act.

(iii) A document shall not be accepted if transmitted by post.

Rule 30 (i) A non-testamentary document presented for registration shall not be accepted unless it is attested by the document writer and the scribe, if any, duly licensed. Provided however that the above rule shall not apply to documents executed on behalf of or in favour of the Government.

Rule 32: (i) One side of the paper on which the document is written shall be left blank to admit the prescribed endorsement and certificates being entered. This may however be relaxed in the case of documents executed by or on behalf of the Central or State Governments, which have been drawn up in forms approved by the respective Government.

Rule 33: Each important interlineations, erasure or alteration occurring in a document shall, whenever possible be caused to be noted or described at the foot of the document and  to be signed by the executants before the document is accepted for registration. This of course is, however, unnecessary in respect of  a document executed solely by a public functionary as such or of a copy received under section 89 of the Act. In such cases it will suffice if the interlineations, erasure or alteration is attested by the officer concerned.

Rule 138: (a) On the registration of a document which revokes or cancels or rectifies an error in or modifies the terms of a document previously registered in the same class of register book or of a return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the time being in force or of a document received and filed under section 89 of the Act, or on the receipt of a communication from a Revenue Officer or from a court which intimates a similar revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification, a note shall be created at foot of the entry of the latter document or communication as under:-

“The document/communication revokes (cancels, rectifies or modifies document No…………of 19…….. Copied/the document filed/the return filed at pages…. Volume…… of Book/File Book1” and at foot of the  previous entry or of the  document previously registered or filed a note shall be entered as shown below)”

This document/return/ has been revoked (cancelled, rectified or modified) by document No…….of 19……. Copied/the document filed/return filed at pages……. Volume…….of Book/File Book1

(b) When the revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification is of a document relating to immovable property a corresponding note shall also be entered in index No.II and when it relates to the rectification of any particular entry in index I, II, III or IV a note of rectification shall also be entered in the respective index against the particular item rectified.

144. (ii) All documents executed by or in favour of the Government, shall be indexed together under word Government, one or more sheets being set apart for such entries in the sheets under the letter.

(viii) In the case of a document executed by or on behalf of the Government, a company, Bank, Society, etc. the name of the person acting on behalf of the Government, company etc., shall be entered in the column “Addition”.If a  document executed in favour of  Government, Company, etc., is presented for registration on behalf of the Government or Company etc., the name of the person presenting it shall be entered in the column “Addition”

171. A certificate of encumbrance shall contain a complete list of all acts and encumbrances affecting the property in question.

174. A copy shall be retained of each encumbrance certificate issued from an office and shall be filed in a separate file book in which the various certificates shall be numbered consecutively in a separate series for each calendar year.

189. A Registering Officer will be held liable for any loss to Government which may arise from neglect on his part in the registration of a document, the making of a search or the grant of a copy of a document, or any other case.

Refusal to Register: 

191. VI. (sections 23, 24,25,26,75 and 77) That it is presented after the prescribed time.

Pondicherry: Pondicherry Registration Rules, 1969:

12(1)A file book shall be maintained in each registration office corresponding with Book1. In this shall be filed- (d) “returns of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act” .(e) communications received from officers of other departments intimating the cancellation, modification or rectification of transactions evidenced by papers previously filed.

Rule 23 (1) A document for registration other than copy of a document forwarded under section 89 of the Act shall be presented in person, with the fee payable therfor, direct to the Registering officer and not to a clerk or peon.

(2) A document referred to in section 88(2) may be  presented through a messenger with a covering letter signed by the Government Officer or other person concerned  referred to in section 88(1) of the Act.

(3) A document shall not be accepted if transmitted by post.

Rule 25: similar to Rule 33 of Kerala.

Rule :60(3) A messenger presenting a document under rule 23(2) shall not be required to prove his identity but shall, unless known personally to the registering officer, be required to sign and affix his thumb impression to the endorsement of the presentation.

Rule 90(2): The endorsement of presentation made on a document present under rule 23(2) shall mention the number and date of the covering letter with which it is presented and the designation of the Government officer or other person concerned. ( similar to the Kerala rule)

Rule 114. (1) On the registration of a document which revokes, or cancels, or rectifies an error in, or modifies the terms of, a document previously registered in the same class of register book or of a return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or of a document received and filed under sec.80 of the Act(vide rule 12 supra), or on the receipt of a communication from a revenue officer or from a court which intimates a similar revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification, a note shall be entered at foot of the entry of the latter document or communication as under:-

“ This document/communication revokes( cancels, rectifies or modifies)

Document No…. of copied/the document filed/ the return filed at page volume of Book/volume of File Book/File Book1 “

And at foot of the previous entry or of the document previously registered or filed a note shall be entered as shown below:

This document/return has been  revoked(cancelled, rectified or modified) by document No./the document filed/ the return filed of copied at page… volume… of Book/File Book/File Book1

(2)When the revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification is of a document relating to immovable property, a corresponding note shall also be entered in Index I,II,III, or IV a note of rectification shall also be entered in the respective index against the particular item rectified.

Karnataka: The Karnataka Registration  Rules, 1965

Rule 17: Supplement to Register Book No.1 and File of Copies and Translation:- (i) Supplements to Register Book No.1 shall be kept as follows:-

Part I-- …..

Part III- (b) for statement regarding  land acquired under the Land Acquisition act, 1894 received from the Deputy Commissioner.

(iii) A separate file shall also be  maintained for communications received from officers of other departments intimating the cancellation,modification or rectification of transactions evidenced by papers previously filed or registered.

Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, 1960: 

13.  (i) A file book shall be maintained in each registration office corresponding with Book I. In this the following shall be filed;

(d)   returns of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act;

(e)  communications received from officers of other Departments intimating the cancellation, modification or rectification of transactions evidenced by papers previously filed;

25.  (i) A document for registration other than a document forwarded under Section 89 shall be presented in person with the fee payable there for,  direct to the Registering Officer and not to a clerk or a peon.

(ii) A document referred to in Section 89(2) may be presented through a messenger with a covering letter signed by the Government Officer or other person concerned referred to in Section 88(1).

118.(a) On the registration of a document which revokes, or cancels or rectifies an error in, or modifies the terms of, a document previously registered in the same class of register book or of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or of a document received and filed under Section 89 (vide Rule 13 supra), or on the receipt of a communication from a Revenue Officer or from a court which intimates a similar revocation cancellation, rectification or modification, a note shall be entered at foot of the entry of the later document or communication as under: —

This document revokes (cancels, rectifies or modifies)

Communication

Document No. if copied

the document filed at pages

the return filed Volume         Book

of file Book

file Book 1

and at foot of the previous entry of the document previously registered

or filed a note shall be entered as shown below:

This                Document

Document has been revoked - cancelled

return

rectified or modified by the   Document No.

                                                     document filed copied

                                                        the return filed

Volume         Book

of File Book

File Book I

(b) When the revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification is of a document relating to immovable property, a corresponding note shall also be entered in Index No. II and when it relates to the rectification of any particulars entered in Indexes I, II, III or IV, a note of rectification shall also be entered in the respective index as against the particular item rectified.

143. A certificate of encumbrance shall contain a complete list of all acts and encumbrances affecting the property in question.

Of the five States/UT analysed so far, in respect of their Registration rules, the following facts emerge: 1. All the five are southern states/UT. 2. All the five have almost uniform rules. 3.The T.N.Registration Rules, approved by the State government and published in the Fort St.George Gazette, dated 28.6.1949, appears to be the source/model for the rules subsequently framed by Kerala (1958), A.P (1960), Karnataka (1965) and Pondicherry(1969). 4. The common thread in the rules of these five states/UT is “the return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act shall be filed in file book 1 (corresponding to Book1), which shall be maintained in all registration offices.” The status of a rule/procedure of registrability of the proceedings under LA is unknown from 1.1.1909 till 28.6.1949. Thus the flaw and the lacuna in respect of registrability of the proceedings under LA appears to be intact till 28.6.1949 when the T.N.Registration rules were published. Although, the registrability of a return(or statement) of lands acquired under LA is akin to the Singapore Prescription( in Singapore LA Act), it would have served to some extent in the need for registrability of the proceedings under LA, the question remains till date, is as to whether the states/UT that made such rules, have followed such rules till date.

If all the five states/UT have followed such rules, the LAO or other relevant official should have executed such returns and should have presented them for registration to the respective registrars who inturn should have filed such returns in the respective file books and made such cross-referencing entries in the file books and registers and indexes and which should inturn have reflected as encumbrances in the ECs issued by such registrars, in respect of notified lands. If it had happened that way, no one who bought notified lands, unaware of the notification or  LA proceedings pending on such lands, would have decided to buy such lands, because they would have had notice of the fact that such lands had been notified under LA and would have understood that it would be perilous to buy lands which were needed by the government for a public cause and had already been compulsorily acquired by the Government.

On the contrary, what appears to have happened was that inspite of the existence of a rule(in these fice states/UT that prescribes that a return of lands acquired under LA, shall be filed with the concerned Registrar, such rule has scarcely been( or has never been?) followed by the concerned officials. Many of the Registration officials, I have interviewed, have never heard of such a return in their whole career. In none of the ECs of LA notified lands I have seen so far, there is not even a single instance of reflection of any detail of LA.

In all the cases of alienation after 4(1) notification, especially from these five States/UT, the respective Governments have to clarify as to how many returns have been filed from the date of promulgation (of the regn. Rule prescribing for the filing of returns of land acquired under the LA Act)till date( in all cases of acquisition under LA) and how many have not been filed;as to how many such filed returns have been endorsed and entered in the relevant books and indexes; as to how many of such entries have been reflected in the respective ECs as acts or encumbrances on land. In all cases, where such returns have not been filed/entered, will it not amount to composite/statutory negligence on the part of the concerned officials? Why lawyers in this country have not challenged such relevant acquisitions in this logical angle in the last 63 years? How many judges/courts in this country have declared such officials who failed to file such statutorily filable returns of lands acquired under LA, as guilty of negligence? How many Registration Officials have questioned the relevant official or department which should have filed such returns as to why they have not filed such returns? In the event of  LAO/SRO failing to file the return of lands acquired under the LA Act, the EC of the SRO will not reflect the fact of LA proceedings pending on a land and therefore, the potential buyer for that land will not be aware of such impediment.

Whether the innocent buyers who applied for an EC, after making sure that there is no impediment or restriction in buying the intended land through the Nil EC provided by the SRO, paid the statutory duties and fees for Registration in full to the Government, registered their sale deeds as stipulated by law,  paid the consideration in full to the seller and obtained immediate delivery of possession, got the respective mutations in the taluk and village revenue records done by relevant officials according to law are guilty of negligence or the acquiring Government  officials who  failed to register the statutorily registrable returns on lands acquired under LA guilty of negligence?

My opinion is that the innocent buyers are diligent and not guilty and the government officials who failed to fulfill their statutory obligation of filing the returns of lands acquired under LA are guilty of composite statutory negligence and therefore the relevant acquisitions should be declared null and void and the relevant alienations declared valid.

As in the case of the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme, and probably many other cases like : Writ Petitions No.4417 of 1997 & No. 7153 of 1997 of the Madras High Court and probably thousands of other cases throughout India( in the states where all similar rules prescribing for the registrability of LA proceedings with the registrar have been in place) the relevant acquisitions should be declared arbitrary and not according to established rule and procedures and therefore should be declared null and void. The failure of the LAO & SRO to  file the LA return and thereby reveal the details of LA proceedings pending on a land through the EC is akin to the negligence of the gate-keeper of the manned-level-crossing in  failing to close the gates of the level-crossing before the arrival of a train as explained in the case cited below:

In order to reinforce the validity of my contention, I am citing the excerpts of the following case as follows: Union Of India (Uoi) vs Hindustan Lever Limited And Ors. on 8 April, 1974

Equivalent citations: AIR 1975 P H 259

Author: M Verma

Bench: M Verma

Excerpts from the Order:

“  6. 'Negligence' may be defined as omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

“So, negligence is a breach of duty to take care resulting in damage to one whether in person or property. The said duty to take care may be imposed by statute or it may arise due to relation in which one may stand to another,”

“When negligence is breach of duty to take care imposed by law, it may be called statutory negligence, and when it is breach of duty to take care arising out of circumstances of a particular case, it may be termed as actionable negligence.”

“'composite negligence' would arise when negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, have caused damage to a third person. In such a case, the said third person does not contribute to the mishap or to the damage and, as such, he is entitled to sue all or any one of the negligent persons for damages. It is no concern of his, whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between the negligent persons.”

“In the case of statutory negligence, the same having arisen out of breach of statutory obligation, neither the defence of contributory negligence nor that of composite negligence, can be open or available to the wrong-doer.”

“I am supported in this view by Bailey v. Geddes, (1938) 1 KB 156, and Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., (1940) AC 152.”

“When a railway crosses a public carriage road, the authorities owning the Railways are under obligation to erect and maintain good and sufficient gates across the road and must employ proper persons to man the same, so as to keep it open for the traffic and the vehicles to pass when no train is likely to pass and to shut the same when a train is approaching.”

“"The gates or chains of these exempted level crossings may normally be kept open to road traffic but must be closed and securely fastened across the road for the passage of a train or trains or for other railway operations."

“The omission on the part of Kewal to close the gates of the level crossing constituted breach of duty imposed upon him by S. R. 229/3 (b). reproduced above. As such, he was clearly guilty of statutory negligence. The principle that a master is liable for the negligence of his servants, if committed in the course of his employment, is well recognised. If a servant is doing negligently something which he was employed to do carefully, the negligent act would be taken as having been committed in the course of his employment and the master is liable for its consequences. The statutory negligence, referred to above, arising out of the omission on the part of Kewal gateman to close the gates of the level crossing was admittedly committed by him during the course of his employment and, as such the appellant (Union of India), being his employer or master, was undoubtedly liable for the consequences, i.e., for the damages resulting to the plaintiff due to the aforesaid negligence.”

“when the gates of the level crossing were being open and showed green or yellow lights on both sides of the road, indicating signal to the driver of the truck to pass through the level crossing, he cannot be said to be guilty of any negligence.”

“as found above, the accident was mainly due to the negligence shown by Kewal gateman in not closing the gates of the level crossing.

It, thus, follows that the accident was due to the negligence of the servants of the appellant and the findings of the trial Court on issues No. 2 and 6 are correct and the same are affirmed.”

“when the gates of the level-crossing were being open and showed green or yellow lights on both sides of the road, indicating signal to the driver of the truck to pass through the level-crossing, he cannot be held guilty of any negligence”

The position of the innocent buyer of a land, who is unaware that such land is under LA notification is akin to that of  the driver of the truck who drives through the open gates of a level-crossing after being shown green lights. Therefore, such buyer of a land cannot be held guilty of any negligence.

Annexure:

Excerpts of the 6 th Report (1957) of the Law Commission of India on the Registration Act, 1908.

 “3.It will thus be seen that the system of registration which was introduced in 1793 remained an optional system till 1866. From 1866 certain classes of documents were required to be compulsorily registered. The Act of 1866 was replaced by Act III of 1877 which was amended from time to time till it was replaced by the present Act XVI of 1908.”

“6…….It is the  Registration Act which provides the machinery for effecting registration and the parties to registrable instruments must necessarily have recourse to the provisions of this Act”

“7……But if the transaction is evidenced by a writing and relates to immovable property, the Registration Act steps in and clauses (b) and (c) of section 17(1) require registration of such documents, subject to the exceptions specified in sub-section (2) of that section.”

“14. From this brief survey of the provisions of the Act it is clear that the object of the Registration Act is to preserve an authentic record of the terms of documents so that if a document be lost or destroyed or misplaced, a certified copy from the register can be obtained. Registration also facilitates the proof of execution of a document as its execution is admitted by the executants, before the Sub-Registrar. Yet another useful purpose that registration serves is to enable any person intending to enter into any transaction relating to immovable property to obtain complete information relating to title to such property and for this purpose to look in to the register and obtain certified copies of the documents.”

“15.Though some sections of the Act have been amended, no revision of the Act has been attempted. We consider that the time has now arrived for a complete recasting of the Act.”

“17. Before dealing with the changes we recommend in the Registration Act, it is necessary to advert briefly to the general scheme of revision adopted by us in Appendix 1 which embodies our proposals. We have regrouped the sections of the Act in such a way as to make its scheme logical and clear. The scheme is as follows:

Part IV: This part provides for the filing in Book1 of the copies of certain documents other than those which are registered. It should be mentioned here that we have not only enlarged the scope of the existing provision in section 89 by including in its ambit additional documents but also improved the procedure, with the object of obviating the necessity for the registration of such documents, at the same time making the Registry as comprehensive as possible  so that it may afford complete notice regarding transactions affecting immovable property. The procedure we recommend is that when a copy of such a document is received from a court or a public officer, it should not only be filed in Book 1 as at present, but a memorandum of such a document should also be prepared and entered in Book 1 and all the entries in Book 1 should be transcribed in the Index.”

“101.Section 89 provides for the dispatch of copies of decrees etc. by public officers. In our opinion, registration under the Registration Act should operate as a complete and effective notice concerning title. All the documents affecting title to immovable property must be brought within the purview of the Registration Act. The document may be registered under that Act, or a memorandum of the  document may be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 65 and 66, or the document may be entered in Book 1, in the manner laid down in section 89. For this purpose, as we have stated at the outset, it will be necessary to enlarge section 89, by adding to the list of documents which copies have to be sent to the registering officer. Bringing in all such documents under section 89 would not put the parties to any additional expenditure as they are not required to get them registered under the Act; only the particulars of them will be entered in Book 1 which pertains to non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property.

102. Copies of all decrees or orders of a Court affecting immovable property situated anywhere within India should be sent by the Court to the Registrar or Registrars in whose jurisdiction the property or properties are situate.

103. We have accepted the suggestion that Courts should send copies of plaints in suits involving immovable property to the registering officer concerned in order  that parties concerned may have notice of the pending list. It should be provided that the plaintiff should file with his plaint extra copies of it and that on receipt of such copies from the plaintiff, the Court shall send the same to the registering officers concerned. A registering officer receiving such a copy should then file the copy in Book 1 and  also prepare a memorandum thereof and get it copied in Book 1. We further recommend that this procedure should be extended to memoranda of appeal, and that, in order to implement this scheme, appropriate rules should be inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring a schedule of property to be given in every memorandum of appeal relating to immovable property.

104.The definition of notice in sec.3 of the Transfer of Property Act was extended by the Amending Act of 1929, by including in it a provision that registration would be noticed not only where the instrument was actually registered under any of the provisions of the Registration Act but also where a memorandum of such registered instrument was filed before a sub-Registrar in the manner provided by sections 65 and 66. But the definition does not make it clear whether documents sent to the registering officer under section 89 and filed by him in Book 1 would also have the effect of notice of such documents as affecting title( see Mulla, Registration Act, 5^th edition,p.294, citing (1882) 2 A.W.N. 51 and (1908) P.R. 143 (F.B.)). It is therefore, necessary to make the matter clear by enacting a provision on the lines of section 90 sub-section(2), giving an entry in Book 1 the same effect as if the document was registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. If it is further provided that copies of all documents affecting title have to be compulsorily sent to the Registrar under section 89, for being filed in Book 1, and that memoranda of such documents should also be entered in Book 1, the registry would afford a complete history of the title to every parcel of immovable property in the district and would enable, a person to get definite information relating to it. If a search in the Registry is to be effective, the register must be as complete as possible. The above-mentioned lacuna in the definition of notice under the Transfer of Property Act is probably due to an oversight and the question of amending that definition will have to be considered at the time of the revision of that Act. Meanwhile, it will be sufficient to introduce the proposed changes in the Registration Act.

Chairman: M.C.Setalvad.  Members: M.C.Chagla, K.N.Wanchoo, P.Satyanarayana Rao, Dr.N.C.Sen Gupta, V.K.T.Chari, D.Narasa Raju, G.S.Pathak, S.M.Sikri, G.N.Joshi, N.A.Palkhivala. Bombay, 1957.