Land acquisition in TN -- The labryinth path - IV
Assume that a person say 'A' has got 5 pattas i.e. five lands adjacent to each in a locality. He sells to 'B'. A sale deed comes into existence between 'A' and 'B'. Ideally 'B' should easily get patta for all these five lands after a few days time. Pratically this does not happen. By the time 'B' sells that to 'C'. 'C' verifies the 5 pattas in A's name and verifies the sale deed between 'A' and 'B'. Verification of patta has to be carried out by 'C' by applying in person at the revenue department. Let us assume that, through "connections" or somehow, 'C' verifies the originality of the Patta and gets clarifies that indeed 'A' was the owner of all those 5 pieces of land. The process of sale deed verification is widely know as getting EC or encumberence certificate. 'C' applies in the registration dept. a.k.a registrar office for EC for a period of his/her choice. Accordingly, in a few days the EC can be obtained. Infact anyone can go and apply for verification of these two set of govt. record. Registration records from 1985 onwards are computerised in registrar offices. Individually in each offices the records are computerised but they are not interconnected. So one has to go to the specific registrar office under which that land comes and apply for a EC. Just to remind a fact that a land can be under one area registrar office and can be another area revenue i.e. thasildhar office. Each govt. office's jurisdiction is determined by that dept itself. The names of districts, taluk et al that commoners use is that of jurisdiction of revenue dept. That is why Chromepet area comes under Kancheepuram district but is under Greater chennai police district.
Now that 'C' has verified the EC and he/she is satisfied that there is no encumburence in the sale and finally purchases from 'B'. Now that 'C' has five legal heirs i.e. children, wife et al. Let us say them as 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', 'C4' and 'C5'. 'C' writes a will to give equal share to his legal heirs and registers it. 'C' dies. Assume that 'C5' sells his portion to 'E'. Now that 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', 'C4' authorise 'D' a builder, to come up with a layout of plots for sale in their share of land. The authorisation has to be registered, again in the registrar office, and the record document would be in the form of a "Power of attorney". 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', and 'C4' would have furnished enough proof for their legal ownership of those pieces of land and registered the "Power of attorney". In that document 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', and 'C4' would have given full permission to draw layout, apply for municipal authority permission for that layout. Assume that 'D' persuades 'E' too to give Power of Attornery(PoA) to come up for the layout.
With these two power of attorneys (PoAs) 'D' comes up with a single layout of building plots of a small township. As per stipulated plan of town planning office or metropolitan planning authority, the layout should consist of properly marked plots, access roads, common playground/park area et al. Let us assume that accordingly 'D' comes up with a layout marking numbers for each plot in it. Assuming that we have 20 plots in the township that encompass these 5 survey numbers owned by 5 different people who through two different PoAs authorised 'D' to come up with this township. For approval 'D' has to provide the valid documents (pattas, PoAs et al) and drawing of layout to the town planning office. The Town planning officer (TPO) approves the layout. There layout sketch provided by 'D' will be signed & stamped by TPO and a the TPO issues a signed order for this entire township layout. Together these two documents form the approved layout records.
Now that if 'F' would like to buy a plot, say plot number 18 there starts the issue. As of now none of these approved documents the layout (i.e.) the sketch or the order says to which survey number does this plot number 18 belong to. Because in the sketch & order it would be mentioned merely that the township encompasses survey number say I, II, III, IV, V (they will be arabic numerals or alpha numerals in reality and not roman numbers. for ease of explanation I have used roman numbers here). So if 'D' & 'C3' sell plot no. 18 to 'F' saying that (in the sale deed) this plot no. 18 belongs to survey number III it becomes incomplete or incorrect as there is no offical records verifying the same. But the sales between 'D' & 'C3' and 'F' is registered by the registrar office because it is not the registration department's duty to verify the validity of ownership. The issue is because the layout sketch (i.e. plots 1 to 20 with road et al) does not show any super-incomposition of survey demarcations (i.e. not super-imposed against the patta drawing) to the layout plot demarcations. So there may arise some encumburence in future if 'E' claims that a portion of plot 18 or entire plot 18 belongs to him/her and he did not authorise 'D' (or) 'C3' to sell the same. Also when 'F' purchases plot 18 there might be another form of encumberence that 'C' might claim that he/she has not actually deceased or there might be yet another "legal" hier of 'C'.
What typically happens in real life nowadays is that, after buying this plot 18 from 'D' and 'C3', 'F' sells it to 'G' then 'G' to 'H'. When 'J' purchases from 'H' he/she might get into such troubles. Atleast the legal hier issues (i.e. 'C' not actually dead or 'C' has another legal heir) can be easily overcome by looking into death certificate or other means. But the bigger problem is the puzzle - 'in which survey number does this plot belong to'.
In reality all such current issues are of this sort that is the real encumberance is burried under a labryinth set of title transfers (sale or otherwise). Currently there is no remedy provided by the metropolitan development authority (MDA) or the TPO office. Much of the clarity that is needed are left in the way the sale deed are drawn and the sale is made. If the sale deed doesn't have the partisan ownership (or) all these owners together sell the plots then such risks is alleviated otherwise only civil suit would determine the legality of ownership of land. One can think further more complicated dimensions to the above mentioned labryinth to conceal the deceit further deep and cheat people further smartly. We have three govt. department -- the revenue dept. (thasildhar office), the TPO/MDA, the registrar office which do three different aspect of land/building management & transaction but are not properly knit to give much needed transparency to block any chances for fraudulence.
The main thing is the TPO or MDA should emphasise of giving some way of showing the superimposition of layout onto the revenue dept demarcation (survey no.) i.e. give a way to shown the layout sketch's superimposition on patta diagram. Also the almost non-functioning of the revenue dept. in providing patta for newer owners should also change. Otherwise this would create a bigger issue in near future. Less knowledgeable people who had to invest money in lakhs would finally end up getting cheated and would soon become bankrupt. Earlier in their loan mela mood even banks have provided loans with some incomplete verifications, now they have also become vulnerable. This situation would not only make individuals bankrupt but may also hurt banks as well.
Would some solution arrive in near future for this issue?
~~~~~~~~~~~~ concluded ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
back
Now that 'C' has verified the EC and he/she is satisfied that there is no encumburence in the sale and finally purchases from 'B'. Now that 'C' has five legal heirs i.e. children, wife et al. Let us say them as 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', 'C4' and 'C5'. 'C' writes a will to give equal share to his legal heirs and registers it. 'C' dies. Assume that 'C5' sells his portion to 'E'. Now that 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', 'C4' authorise 'D' a builder, to come up with a layout of plots for sale in their share of land. The authorisation has to be registered, again in the registrar office, and the record document would be in the form of a "Power of attorney". 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', and 'C4' would have furnished enough proof for their legal ownership of those pieces of land and registered the "Power of attorney". In that document 'C1', 'C2', 'C3', and 'C4' would have given full permission to draw layout, apply for municipal authority permission for that layout. Assume that 'D' persuades 'E' too to give Power of Attornery(PoA) to come up for the layout.
With these two power of attorneys (PoAs) 'D' comes up with a single layout of building plots of a small township. As per stipulated plan of town planning office or metropolitan planning authority, the layout should consist of properly marked plots, access roads, common playground/park area et al. Let us assume that accordingly 'D' comes up with a layout marking numbers for each plot in it. Assuming that we have 20 plots in the township that encompass these 5 survey numbers owned by 5 different people who through two different PoAs authorised 'D' to come up with this township. For approval 'D' has to provide the valid documents (pattas, PoAs et al) and drawing of layout to the town planning office. The Town planning officer (TPO) approves the layout. There layout sketch provided by 'D' will be signed & stamped by TPO and a the TPO issues a signed order for this entire township layout. Together these two documents form the approved layout records.
Now that if 'F' would like to buy a plot, say plot number 18 there starts the issue. As of now none of these approved documents the layout (i.e.) the sketch or the order says to which survey number does this plot number 18 belong to. Because in the sketch & order it would be mentioned merely that the township encompasses survey number say I, II, III, IV, V (they will be arabic numerals or alpha numerals in reality and not roman numbers. for ease of explanation I have used roman numbers here). So if 'D' & 'C3' sell plot no. 18 to 'F' saying that (in the sale deed) this plot no. 18 belongs to survey number III it becomes incomplete or incorrect as there is no offical records verifying the same. But the sales between 'D' & 'C3' and 'F' is registered by the registrar office because it is not the registration department's duty to verify the validity of ownership. The issue is because the layout sketch (i.e. plots 1 to 20 with road et al) does not show any super-incomposition of survey demarcations (i.e. not super-imposed against the patta drawing) to the layout plot demarcations. So there may arise some encumburence in future if 'E' claims that a portion of plot 18 or entire plot 18 belongs to him/her and he did not authorise 'D' (or) 'C3' to sell the same. Also when 'F' purchases plot 18 there might be another form of encumberence that 'C' might claim that he/she has not actually deceased or there might be yet another "legal" hier of 'C'.
What typically happens in real life nowadays is that, after buying this plot 18 from 'D' and 'C3', 'F' sells it to 'G' then 'G' to 'H'. When 'J' purchases from 'H' he/she might get into such troubles. Atleast the legal hier issues (i.e. 'C' not actually dead or 'C' has another legal heir) can be easily overcome by looking into death certificate or other means. But the bigger problem is the puzzle - 'in which survey number does this plot belong to'.
In reality all such current issues are of this sort that is the real encumberance is burried under a labryinth set of title transfers (sale or otherwise). Currently there is no remedy provided by the metropolitan development authority (MDA) or the TPO office. Much of the clarity that is needed are left in the way the sale deed are drawn and the sale is made. If the sale deed doesn't have the partisan ownership (or) all these owners together sell the plots then such risks is alleviated otherwise only civil suit would determine the legality of ownership of land. One can think further more complicated dimensions to the above mentioned labryinth to conceal the deceit further deep and cheat people further smartly. We have three govt. department -- the revenue dept. (thasildhar office), the TPO/MDA, the registrar office which do three different aspect of land/building management & transaction but are not properly knit to give much needed transparency to block any chances for fraudulence.
The main thing is the TPO or MDA should emphasise of giving some way of showing the superimposition of layout onto the revenue dept demarcation (survey no.) i.e. give a way to shown the layout sketch's superimposition on patta diagram. Also the almost non-functioning of the revenue dept. in providing patta for newer owners should also change. Otherwise this would create a bigger issue in near future. Less knowledgeable people who had to invest money in lakhs would finally end up getting cheated and would soon become bankrupt. Earlier in their loan mela mood even banks have provided loans with some incomplete verifications, now they have also become vulnerable. This situation would not only make individuals bankrupt but may also hurt banks as well.
Would some solution arrive in near future for this issue?
~~~~~~~~~~~~ concluded ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
back
posted by Kupps at 5:47 AM
<< Home