Indian Express: Chandigarh: Wednesday, May 30, 2012.
The harassment of obtaining a no objection certificate (NOC) from the UT Estate Office to get your property registered/ sold is finally over. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the demand of an NOC by the Chandigarh Administration “before effecting sale of the free hold properties is not supported by the Act or the Rules”. Ever since the Administration passed a circular on September 2, 2009, making it mandatory for the original owner of a property to get an NOC by the UT Estate Office, local residents/ property dealers were a harassed lot. They rued that when they were forced to get signatures from the original allottee years after the property transfer, the latter (original allottee) used to demand his “commission” for registration/ sale of property. A bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta has put an end to this.
“It shall be open to the prospective purchasers to obtain information in respect of any encumbrance under the Right to Information Act (RTI) as well. But the non-disclosure of information either under RTI or on the website of the UT will not create any equitable right in favour of the prospective vendee,” reads the order.
The Bench also noticed that there are no rules or instructions in respect of updating the record of the Estate Office on the basis of the sale deeds executed. “It is open to the Administration to frame appropriate rules, which may regulate the procedure for updating its record, so that the prospective vendees and all interested persons are able to find out the status of the properties to the best possible manner,” the Bench has held.
In the concluding paragraph of the detailed judgment, the High Court has ruled that “for successful curbing of the malice of so-called power of attorney sales, it is high time that the Administration re-examines the Rules relating to claim of unearned increase. It is a matter of common knowledge that the parties have to sell the properties maybe in need of money or to simply earn profit. Therefore, any encumbrance on the transfer of rights in an immovable property leads to unscrupulous means to avoid the provisions of law. Therefore, the Administration may re-examine the entire process of unearned increase and adopt other means of increasing its revenue”.
The sub-registrar has been directed to record a finding if he refuses to register any power of attorney. “If such reasons are recorded, the aggrieved persons would have liberty to avail the remedies as available in law. There may be cases where in spite of bona fide enquiries, the sub-registrar is not able to make out whether the power of attorney is for consideration. But if on the basis of such power of attorney, an instrument for sale is presented for registration, the sub-registrar will be competent to hold an enquiry at any subsequent stage into the nature of transaction and to return a finding that such power of attorney was for consideration and, therefore, cannot be made the basis for registration of an instrument unless the deficiency in such case was made good in accordance with law,” the Bench ordered.
The directions were issued in the wake of a petition filed by one Amritpal Singh. The petitioner had challenged the circular dated September 2, 2009, issued by the then UT Finance Secretary. The circular had read that “NOC will only be applied by the owner of the property as per the record of the Estate Office and the same will only be issued to him/ her”.
The petitioner had contended that a GPA holder is competent to make an application for conversion of land use and that there was no provision in the rules for making an NOC mandatory. The Administration, on the other hand, had contended that the demand for an NOC is a step to avoid and discourage any kind of irregular, illegal, fraudulent sale transactions.
.JPG)
.JPG)
