Registration Deficiency Syndrome- chapter7:
With reference to the importance of the effects and implications of compliance/non-compliance with the registration rules relevant to lands acquired under the LA Act, 1894, viz., in respect of presenting the RLA for registration, filing the same and making relevant entries in the relevant books and indexes, the judgment detailed as follows will help to clear certain potential doubts that may arise while analyzing the syndrome.
Registration rules are to be treated as part of the Registration Act itself and will have effect as if they are part of the Act:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456688/
Bombay High Court
Kishnu Ghanshyam vs Maroti Mukunda on 16 January, 1963
Equivalent citations: (1963) 65 BOMLR 578
Author: Paranjpe
Bench: Paranjpe
JUDGMENT
Paranjpe, J.
“8. The learned advocate for the appellants, Shri Banerjee, submitted that this Rule 36, which had come into existence under powers vested in the State Government to frame rules, could not have the effect of overriding or controlling Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act. In making that submission Shri Banerjee was obviously treating this Rule 36 as a mere piece of subordinate and delegated legislation, which had a lower status and place than the Act passed by the Legislature. He, however, overlooked the provisions of Section 69 of the Registration Act in this connection. Section 69(1) of the Registration Act authorises the Inspector General of Registration of each State to frame rules consistent with the Act on several points of procedure mentioned in Clauses (a) to (j) thereunder. Sub-section (2) of that section further lays down that 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 such publication, shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. This special and additional provision in Sub-section (2) would, therefore, mean that though these rules were pieces of subordinate and delegated legislation, the Legislature itself had intended and provided that once the rules, as proposed by the Inspector General, were approved by the State Government and were published in the Official Gazette, they were to have the same effect as if they were enacted by the Legislature itself, These rules framed under Section 69 were, therefore, parts of the Act itself and were to be treated as enacted by the Legislature as they were admittedly published in the Official Gazette after approval by the State Government, Consequently, this Rule 36 also would have to be treated as being a part of the Act itself and as being on par with Section 35 of the main Act.”
