Telangana High Court Upholds Section 22A Registration Act, Says Prohibition On Registering Certain Documents Not Violative Of Article 300A
The Telangana High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Prohibition of Registration of certain documents) finding that it was consistent with the legislative mandate of Section 17 (which enumerates the documents of which registration is compulsory) and not in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.The division bench of...
The Telangana High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Prohibition of Registration of certain documents) finding that it was consistent with the legislative mandate of Section 17 (which enumerates the documents of which registration is compulsory) and not in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.
The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Sharvan Kumar added that the State's guidelines emphasized that the power under Section 22A must be exercised in compliance with these guidelines to prevent misuse while clarifying that the possibility of misuse or abuse does not invalidate the section.
"The authority has to exercise the power under Section 22A of the Act in consonance with aforesaid guidelines. Therefore, the contention that exercise of power under Section 22A of the Act is unbridled or unfettered does not deserve acceptance. Even otherwise, a mere possibility of misuse of a provision would not invalidate the same."
The Court was considering a plea alleging that Section 22A gave the State unbridled power to restrict registration arbitrarily, and the same was against Article 300A of the Constitution and Sections 17, 70-73,49 and 76 of the Registration Act.
The Registration Act is a Central Act and individual States have the power to amend it as per Entries 6 & 7 of the Concurrent list. In 1999, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh first amended the Act to insert section 22A. Section 22A authorized the State to declare the registration of certain documents as opposed to Public Policy and restrict registration of the same.
A similar amendment was also made in the State of Rajasthan. This amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court, and the Court scrapped the provision as being vague. Since the amendment in the erstwhile State of AP was also challenged, owing to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v Basant Nahata, this also had to be scrapped.
In 2007, the erstwhile State of AP reintroduced the section, providing an explanation, statement of objects and reasons, grievance redressal mechanism and extensive guidelines by way of notification dated 14th September 2007.
In 2015, a Full Bench of the Telangana High Court interpreted the section in detail and cleared any lingering cloud of doubt.
The petitioners are individuals whose registration has been rejected as being covered by Section 22A. They have challenged the amendment contending that it was passed without the assets of the president, it was repugnant to the Registration Act, and on the ground that, since the State is a juristic person and has the right to hold property, it cannot also decide title. Lastly, it was contended that it was arbitrary and violative of the Indian Constitution.
The Court relied on Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary vs. Revenue Department wherein the Full Bench had interpreted the impugned section and the said guidelines. The Full Bench had observed that the guidelines were detailed and that the State Authorities could enforce section 22A only within the preview of the Guidelines. It was also held that the Notification issuing the guidelines was always subject to judicial review and could not be said to be absolute. Bound by this decision and concurring with it, the Division Bench accepted the interpretation of section 22A.
Regarding the argument that Section 22A violates Section 17, the Court noted that Section 17 enumerates the documents for which registration is compulsory and thus does not confer any right on any person to seek registration of documents.
"Section 22A, which provides registration of certain documents, in no way constitutes any infraction of legislative mandate contained in Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the contention that Section 22A of the Act is violative of Section 17 of the Act and is, therefore, arbitrary is misconceived. Similarly, the argument that Section 22A of the Act is repugnant to Sections 49, 70 to 73 and 76 of the Act also does not deserve acceptance."
The bench also dismissed the argument that it was violative of Article 300A since the said provision mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
"The refusal to register the documents referred to in Section 22A of the Act by no stretch of imagination can be said to be violation of right to hold the property. The Registration of a document does not create any title. The action of non-registration of a document under Section 22A does not prevent a person of the right to enjoy his property. The contention that Section 22A of the Act violates Article 300A is therefore misconceived."
Thus, while dismissing the petition, the Bench held that the petitioners failed to abduce any material to prove their claim.
"It is trite law that a party invoking protection of Article 14 has to make an averment with details to sustain such a plea and has to adduce material to establish the allegations made and the burden is on the party to plead and prove that its right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been infringed."
Case Title: M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited vs State of AP
Counsel for petitioners: P. Prabhakar Reddy, E.Madan Mohan Rao, Senior Counsel, V.Hari Haran, Senior Counsel, , Karri Suryanarayana, . A.M.Qureshi, Senior Counsel
Counsel for State: Advocate General and Senior Counsel B.S. Prasad
Counsel for Waqf Board: B. Mayur Reddy, Senior Counsel for Abu Akbar