Indirani v. The District Registrar (Administration)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and W.M.P.(MD)No.7230 of 2023 Indirani ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, (Administration), Palani, Dindigul District.
2.Balasubramani 3.Chellammal 4.Selvanarayanan 5.Magudeswaran ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.5713/E1/2022, dated 23.02.2023 and quash the same as arbitrary, ultravires, contrary to the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2011 in O.S.No. 258/2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vedasanthur and the circulars dated 09.04.2018, 07.06.2018, 25.03.2022, 23.09.2022, 27.09.2022, 04.01.2023 in Letter Nos.41530/U1/2017, 25600/C1/2018, 41530/U1/2017, 14210/C1/2020, 33760/U1/2022, 45633/U1/2022 and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh in accordance with law. 1/4
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For R1 : Mr.M.Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For R3 to R5 : No Appearance
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that her request, seeking cancellation of the partition deed dated 24.09.1990, is rejected by the 1st respondent, vide order dated 23.02.2023, stating that the partition deed dated 24.09.1990 had been entered prior to the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2011. Therefore, challenging the same, she has filed this Writ Petition. 3.At the outset, the order passed by the 1st respondent does not require any interference for the simple reason that the Registering Authority has no power to cancel any registered document. Further, the very Section 77(A) inserted under Registration Act is struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch. This aspect has been elaborately dealt with in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.[ 2016 10 SCC 767] and G. 2/4
Rajasulochana v Inspector General made in W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024.
4.In view of the above settled position of law, unless the power is specifically vested with the registering authority to cancel any document and to go into the matter, there cannot be any direction to the authorities concerned to cancel the document. All these facts cannot be looked into by this Court and the same has to be agitated before the civil Court. 5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is for the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent civil Court in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Yuva To The District Registrar, (Administration), Palani, Dindigul District.
3/4
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J Yuva 29.08.2024 4/4