Baskaran Kanakasabai (entrepreneur) 02 August 2014

Registration deficiency syndrome- chapter 6

Due to repetitive pasting error, Part-6 of the presentation titled Registration deficiency syndrome , posted last night is reposted with the correction herewith.

	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, 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)
	¹⁷So 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