K.Lakshmi v. The Inspector General Of Registration,

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH K.Lakshmi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Inspector General Of Registration, No. 100, Santhom High Road, Chennai -600 028.

2.The District Registrar(Administration), Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

3.Pradeep Marimuthu 4.Varathappan 5.Sasikala,= Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to

2/6 conduct an enquiry against the 4th and 5th respondents related to the sale deed vide Document No. 17952/2024 dated 27.08.2024 under section 22A and 22B of the Registration Act 1908 subsequently to take suitable action against the 3rd respondent in accordance with law pursuant to the Petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2024.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N.Ranjith Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to conduct an enquiry based on the representation made by the petitioner on 26.12.2024 with respect to the Sale Deed dated 27.08.2024 which was registered as Document No.17952 of 2024 that took place between the 4 th and 5th respondents on the ground that it is opposed to Sections 22A and 22B of the Registration Act, 1908.

3/6 2.Heard Mr.N.Ranjith Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

3.In the considered view of this Court, even if an enquiry is conducted by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, they cannot cancel the registered document. The only power that was conferred under Section 77A of the Registration Act was held to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and others reported in 2024 4 CTC 769. That apart, such an exercise cannot be done under Section 68(2) of the Act. Therefore, even if a direction is given, it will not yield any result in favour of the petitioner.

4.In the light of the above discussion, it is left open to the petitioner to workout her remedy in the manner known to law by questioning the said document before the competent forum.

4/6 5.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. 30-04-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ssr

5/6 To 1.The Inspector General Of Registration, No. 100, Santhom High Road, Chennai -600 028.

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

6/6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr 30-04-2025