TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though, in the prayer made seeks modification of the order dated 30.11.2011, paragraph 9 of the application mentions order dated 11.04.2012). This court, by an order dated 11.04.2012 in CA No.648/2012, had directed maintenance of status quo with respect to the said property and had restrained the applicants from transferring, selling or alienating the said property. 2. The principal question to be considered is whether registration of a sale deed relating to a property situated in Bihar, with the office of Sub-Registrar - Mumbai would be valid. 3. The brief facts of the case are that SBL Industries Ltd. (company in liquidation and hereinafter referred to as the 'company') was the owner of the property situated at Plot No.74/A, Sub Plot No. 74/AII of Village Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, P.S. No.203, District Ranchi, Jharkhand since 1976. The said property is hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property'. The applicants are stated to have purchased the said property, divided into eight shares, from the company for a total consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-consisting of Rs. 5,00,000/- for each of eight divided shares of the subject property. The said consideration wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the joint account maintained with the Punjab National Bank, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Account No.3075000101759189). 8. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application being CA No.1838/2013, seeking modification of the order dated 11.04.2012 to enable the applicants to use the subject property for running the sales/workshop of Maruti and to make suitable changes in the super structure of the subject property in terms of the Letter of Intent dated 13.09.2013. Submissions of the parties 9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has contended that the order dated 30.11.2011 was passed by this Court in absence of and without notice to the applicants in whose favour the subject sale deeds were executed. The learned counsel also pointed out that the impugned order was, apparently, passed on the concession given by the ex-management of the company. He submitted that the position of the ex-management would now be adversarial to that of the applicants since their interest would be to resile from the transaction already entered into and, therefore, this Court erred in proceeding on the basis of the concession given by the ex-managemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase of the subject property was a bonafide transaction. It was further contended that the property in question was acquired by the applicants more than one year prior to the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator and prior to the commencement of the winding up of the company. The applicant also submits that as per the directions of the Revenue Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, an additional sum of Rs. 87,000 per sale deed was deposited for mutating the property in question and the same was endorsed. 14. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator contended that the registration of the sale transaction with respect to the property is void as in terms of Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, every document mentioned under sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub- section (1) of Section 17 and sub-section (2) of section 17, and sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (cc) of Section 18 of the Act is required to be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub- district the whole of the property to which such document relates is situated. Since, in the present case, the property is situated within the territorial limits of the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficial Liquidator, the same indicated that negotiations for sale of the property and an agreement regarding the same was entered into much prior to 18.12.2000. And, it was contended, at the material time neither Mr. Ajay Jain nor any other person had the requisite authority to sell the property or enter into any agreement or receive any consideration for the same. Therefore, the transaction in question was invalid. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 18. The issue to be addressed in the present proceedings is whether the order dated 30.11.2011 is required to be recalled as the said order was passed in the absence of the applicants and without notice to them. The second question that is to be considered is whether the registration of the subject sale deeds could be cancelled on account of the subject property being situated in Ranchi, which at the material time was a part of the State of Bihar, and the registration being effected by the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai. The essential controversy being whether by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') an immovable property situated in Bihar could be registered by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was omitted. Prior to the said amendments, Sections 28 and 30 of the Act read as under:- "28. Place for registering documents relating to land. -Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in section 17, sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), section 17, sub-section (2), insofar as such document affects immovable property, and section 18, clauses (a), (b) (c) and (cc), shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. 30. Registration by Registrars in certain cases. - (1) Any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. (2) The Registrar of a district in which a Presidency-Town is included and the Registrar of the Delhi district may receive and register any document referred to in section 28 without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document relates." 22. At the material time of execution of the subject sale deeds, the aforesaid un-amended provisions were on the statute book as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the concurrent list, the legislation as enacted by the Parliament would prevail. In a situation, where a State Legislation has obtained the President's assent, the same would prevail in that State. Although, in the present case, there are no two different enactments, however, the principles that are enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of India would be applicable. Thus, in my view, the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991, would prevail over the existing law (i.e pre-constitutional legislation) as applicable to the State of Bihar. However, it is relevant to note that the same does not imply that the law as amended by the Bihar Legislature would have extraterritorial application. The last four words of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India - "prevail in that State" clearly restrict the applicability of the amendment to the state of Bihar. That being so, the Registration of the sale deeds in question by the registering authorities in Mumbai by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Act are not flawed. 25. It is apparent from the above that the registration authorities in the State of Maharashtra were duly empowered to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting Section 30(2) of the Act, except to provide that registering documents other than in a manner as expressed by Section 28 of the Act was not available. However, that in my view would not be the same as expressing a legislative intent to void registrations of all documents that are effected, by virtue of section 30(2) of the Act, by Registrars of the districts in which the erstwhile Presidency-towns are located or by the Registrar of Delhi. 28. It is relevant to note that although, the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 omitted Sub-section 2 of Section 30 from the Act. No attendant change was brought in Section 66 and 67 of the said Act which read as under:- "66. Procedure after registration of documents relating to land.- (1) On registering any non-testamentary document relating to immovable property, the Registrar shall forward a memorandum of such document to each Sub-Registrar subordinate to himself in whose sub-district any part of the property is situate. (2) The Registrar shall also forward a copy of each document, together with a copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned in Section 21, to every other Registrar in whose district any part of such property is situ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal. In the case of Rumi Sein (supra), a controversy arose with reference to two deeds of conveyance relating to the property situated in West Bengal which were registered in June 1999, at Mumbai. The Calcutta High Court considered the controversy in the following manner:- "There is a further technical objection to the power of attorney taken by the plaintiffs. They say that Section 28 of the Registration Act, as is relevant in the context, provides that a document affecting immovable property shall be presented for registration in the office of a sub-registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. The plaintiffs refer to Section 30 of the Act and the effect of such provision following its amendment. Prior to the relevant amendment of Section 30 of the Act, sub-section (2) thereof permitted, inter alia, the registrar of a district in which a presidency town was included to receive and register any document referred to in Section 28 without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document related. Sub-section (2) was omitted from S....