HYDERABAD: Allowing the writ appeals filed by the Waqf Board, the Telangana High Court has dismissed a series of writ petitions filed by M/s Invecta Technologies Pvt Ltd and others, challenging the validity of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 which was amended by the government of undivided AP through Act No.4 of 1999.
In its orders, the court said that the mere possibility of misuse of a provision would not invalidate it and that authorities must exercise their power under Section 22A of the Act in accordance with the established guidelines. It also rejected the argument that the exercise of power under Section 22A was unbridled.
Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 22A of the Act violated Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and was thus repugnant. Senior counsel also argued that no Presidential assent had been granted to AP Act No.19 of 2007, rendering it void under Article 245 read with Article 254(1) of the Indian.
The argument was also made that the State, being a juristic person, had a right to hold property under the Constitution and should not decide its own title. It was claimed that Section 22A amounted to issuing a permanent injunction against registering documents under the Act, violating the petitioner’s rights under Section 17, and thereby being arbitrary and discriminatory, contravening Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
In response, Advocate General BS Prasad stated that legislative enactments could only be challenged on the grounds of lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The amendment, Act No.19 of 2007, which inserted Section 22A into the Registration Act, was enacted under Entries 6 and 7 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution and had received the assent of the President of India, thus establishing the State Legislature’s competence to enact it.
It was further clarified that Section 22A of the Act did not empower authorities to determine the legality or illegality of any document. Therefore, the argument that Section 22A violated Article 300A of the Constitution was deemed misconceived. The challenge on the grounds that it violated principles of natural justice was also rejected, as Section 22A did not empower the registering authority to pass adverse orders affecting any person’s rights, and aggrieved individuals could seek remedies under Section 22A(4) of the Act.
After considering these arguments, the High Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions and upheld the validity of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908.