K.Sudha v. The Sub Registrar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/685/2022 K Sudha Vs.

The Sub Registrar and another Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. . Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents April 10, 2024 [SR] Item No.11 The writ petitioner seeks a direction upon the authorities to permit the writ petitioner to register a sale deed without insisting on any documents other than those required under the Registration Act.

Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased an immovable property of 2344 Sq.mtrs by a register deed of conveyance. Petitioner now wants to sell the same. Petitioner presented a deed of sale for registration which such deed of sale was returned on the ground that, the deed violates section 159(2)(i) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.

Administration is represented.

Learned advocate for the Administration submits that, Regulation 159 in the statute book seeks to prevent fragmentation of land which are available in these Islands. He submits that, since, the holding of the petitioner is less than the two hectors, petitioner cannot be allowed to register sale deed in respect of the immovable property concerned.

Moreover, petitioner owns other immovable property and the petitioner needs to sale such property also since cumulatively both the properties aggregate to less than two hectors. In the facts of present case, the petitioner purchased two immovable properties in three different locations by a registered deed of conveyance. When the petitioner purchased three immovable

properties they were less than two hectors. Sale in respect of them were allowed to be registered by the Administration. Justification for allowing registration of such sale in favour of the petitioner was that in aggregate, immovable property was sold in excess of two hectares. Now, the petitioner is owner of three immovable properties at three different locations. The contention of the Administration primarily is that the petitioner must divest the entirety of her holding.

In my view, in the facts of the present case, section 159 of the Regulation of 1966 cannot be read to mean that, the petitioner cannot sale one of the immovable properties in its entirety to a party of the choice of the petitioner. Petitioner is selling one of the immovable properties out of the three immovable properties, which are located at distance of each other, to a party of the choice of the petitioner. Section 159 and also the policy decision of the Administration, as emanating from the writing dated December 12, 1996 taken in terms of the order of High Court passed in CO No. 102 of 1996 does not impede the registration of such sale. In such circumstances, the registering authorities, in the facts of present case, is directed to register the sale deed presented for registration by the petitioner without insisting on the occupancy report from the Administration within a period of six weeks from date.

WPA/685/2022 is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

( Debangsu Basak, J. )