The petitioners claim to be the owners of 236 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land falling within the extended urban limits of Municipal Committee, Kasur, respondent No,1. As per averments, the petitioners want to sell the land in small pieces/plots mostly for the purposes of residence.
Respondent No,1 by way of its letter dated 13-7-1995 (Annexure-A) addressed to the Registrar District Kasur requested the Registrar/Sub-Registrar, respondent No,2 to desist from registering the sale-deeds "until the owners/Developers/Sellers do not obtain No Objection Certificate from Municipal Committee, Kasur, under section 75 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, in the general public interest." Alongwith the letter, the names of the owners as well as the lands owned by them have been annexed. The petitioners also assert that notice dated 5-7-1995 (Annexure-B) was later received from respondent No,1 wherein the petitioners were directed "not to sell the plots without having Development Scheme sanctioned from the Committee". It is the case of the petitioners that the letter in question, Annexure-A, has been issued without legal sanction and so is the act of respondent No,2 in acting upon/accepting the same.
2. On 12-9-1995, this petition was admitted to regular hearing to consider the question that even if the provisions of section 75/76 of the erstwhile Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (Now section 81/82 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1996) have not been complied with, the Sub- Registrar has no authority under Registration Act, 1908 to refuse to register the sale deed presented to him. Both respondents Nos.1 and 2 have entered appearance and have also filed their comments. Respondent No, 1 has taken the position that the sale of the land in small plots/parcels without proper facilities of streets, roads, schools, etc. would lead to slums and ugly locality and as such the impugned letter has been issued in public interest to ensure compliance of section 75/76 of the Ordinance, 1979. Respondent No,2 has taken a similar position and has maintained that the action has been taken in public interest although it is denied that this respondent has put any clog on the exercise of the rights of ownership of the petitioners.
3.Sub-Registrar, respondent No,2, is the creation of Registration Act, 1908 and this respondent has to operate within the provisions of the said Act. The provisions are comprehensive, detailed and also lay down as to when the Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a document. For instance, under section 19, if the document is in a language which the registering officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the district, the registering officer can refuse to register the document unless it be accompanied by a true translation into a language commonly used in the district and also by a true copy. Under section 20, "the registering officer has been authorised to refuse to accept for registration any document in which any interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration appears, unlesss persons executing the document attest with their signatures or initials such interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration." "Section 21 of the Act deals with the description of property and maps or plans and under subsection (4) thereof, registration can be declined if the non-testamentary document containing a map or plan of any property comprised therein is not accompanied by a true copy of the map or plan, etc. Section 22 of the Act, deals with description of houses and land by reference to Government maps or surveys. Section 34 empowers the registering officer to make enquiry before registration and to satisfy himself as to the persons executing the document. Finally, section 35 lays down the procedure on admission and denial of execution and sub-section (3), Clauses (a), (b) and (c) empower the registering officer to refuse to register the document in the event of the existence of conditions in (a),(b) and (c).
4. It will be seen that non-compliance of section 75/76 of the erstwhile Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 is not one of the grounds upon which registering officer can refuse to register the document. Neither the learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 nor the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has been able to pinpoint any provision authorising the registering officer to decline registration of a document on the basis of violation or apprehended violation of section 75/76 of the Ordinance and for that matter any other provision of the Ordinance. In fact, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, was almost in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners on this legal facet of the case.
5. It will be seen that both respondents Nos.l and 2 in their comments and written statements have laid emphasis on the public interest only and have attempted to defend the action on the basis of the same. They have not been able to justify refusal to register or proposed refusal on the basis of any express or-implied provision of any statutory law, although only Registration Act, 1908 and the erstwhile Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, now replaced by the Punjab Local Government Act, 1996, seem to be the relevant statutes. The survey of these two statutes clearly shows that the call of respondent No,1 contained in Annexure 'A' and acceptance of the same by respondent No,2 has no statutory backing.
6. The attempted plea that Annexure 'A' should be upheld because it serves to ensure public interest is devoid of force. Even if the object is laudible and good, the means adopted to achieve the same ought also to be legal and equally good. The Court cannot sanction the achievement of public good by illegal means or means having no legal backing. It is often said that road to hell is paved with good intentions. If compliance of section 75/76 of the Ordinance is required by denying registration, the law-giver has to specifically provide for the same. Otherwise, respondent No,1 will have to enforce compliance of the above provisions by looking into and resorting to the coercive provisions contained in Ordinance, 1979/the Act of 1996.
7. The prayer that Annexure 'B', a notice under section 75 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, be also declared as without lawful authority, cannot be allowed. This Court cannot bless the stand of the petitioners that they, the petitioners, may be permitted to violate the provisions of section 75/76 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It is for the petitioners to reply to the notice and to contest the case of respondent No,1 that development of a residential locality without complying with the provisions of sections 75/76 cannot take place.
8. For the reasons noted above, this Constitutional petition is partly allowed and it is hereby declared that Annexure 'A' has been issued without lawful authority and that respondent No,2 cannot decline the registration of sale-deed on the ground that he has been asked to do so by Annexure 'A'. If and when a document for registration is presented, respondent No,2 will proceed to register/refuse to register in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, as interpreted in this judgment. In the peculiar facts of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.