Lakshmanan v. The District Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.09.2025

CORAM

The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Writ Petition No.35043 of 2025 and WMP.Nos.39202 and 39205 of 2025 Lakshmanan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The District Registrar, (Administration), Office of The District Registrar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Office Of The Sub Registrar, Vanur, 3.The Superintendent Of Police, 4.The Inspector Of Police, Auroville Police Station, Thiruchirampalam, Vanur Taluk, 5.The Auroville Foundation, Rep. by its Secretary, Auroville, 1/6

6.Pachaiyappan 7.Kumar ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 in Na.Ka.No. 5146/ A3/ 2022 passed by the 1st Respondent District Registrar (Administration), Tindivanam quash the same and consequently that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to annul or cancel a registered settlement deed dated 25.7.1990 particularly in the face of a binding civil court decree. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Edwin Yuvan Raj For Respondents : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate (R1 and R2) Mr.L.Baskaran (Crl.side) (R3 and R4) Government Advocate ***

O R D E R

Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.L.Baskaran (Crl.side), learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) taes notice on behalf of the respondents 3 2/6

and 4.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, cancelling the Settlement Deed dated 25.07.1990 and to quash the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent has no authority to cancel or nullify the Settlement Deed, especially in the face of decree of a competent civil Court. Further, he would submit that Division Bench of this Court in a batch of cases vide Judgment dated 02.08.2024 in W.P.No.10291 of 2022, etc., batch has held that Section 77A of the Registration Act is unconstitutional and it has no retrospective effect and the registering authority has no power to cancel or invalidate the documents already registered and relegated the parties to the Civil Court. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid Judgment, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents1 3/6

and 2 also accepted the said contention and prayed for appropriate orders.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and in view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.08.2024 in W.P.Nos.10291 of 2022, etc., batch impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is liable to be quashed and accordingly the impugned order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent is quashed. However, the 3rd respondent-authority can relegate the parties to Civil Court, if so advised.

6. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

17.09.2025 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No arr 4/6

To

1. The District Registrar, (Administration), Office of The District Registrar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Office Of The Sub Registrar, Vanur, 3.The Superintendent Of Police, 4.The Inspector Of Police, Auroville Police Station, Thiruchirampalam, Vanur Taluk, 5.The Auroville Foundation, Rep. by its Secretary, Auroville, 5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

arr Writ Petition No.35043 of 2025 17.09.2025 6/6