Ravichandran.C v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P(MD)No.18727 of 2022 1.C.Ravichandran 2.R.Kannan
...Petitioners
-Vs1.The District Registrar, O/o.District Registrar Office(Madurai South), No.171, Aranmanisalai, Madurai South, Madurai District.
2.The Commissioner, O/o.Commissioner Officer, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai.
3.The Thasildar, O/o.Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai District.
4.The Correspondent, Dolphin Matriculation School, Ponmeni, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
(R2 to R4 are impleaded as the proposed parties vide Court order, dated 20.11.2024 in W.M.P(MD)No.9862 of 2024 in W.P(MD)No.24635 of 2022)
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent under its proceedings Na.Ka.No.4060/Aa2/2022 dated 23.09.2022 and quash the same as ultra virus, illegal and not valid in law and in consequence directing the respondent to restore the settlement deed dated 27.10.2020 (Doc. No.3581/2020) executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner within a period of time as may be fixed by this Court or any other original title deeds.
For Petitioners : M/s.M.Ponniah For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 3 Mr.S.Vinayak Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.Y.Ganesh for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 23.09.2022, thereby cancelled the settlement deed dated 27.10.2020 executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner. 2.The property comprising in survey No.140/2B part in Town survey Ward No.23/ Block No.29 and now comprised in Town survey No.95
measuring about 1495 square feet situated at Ponmeni village, Madurai West side. The subject property was assigned in favour of the first petitioner he was also issued patta. Thereafter, the first petitioner had executed the settlement deed in favour of his son, namely, the second petitioner on 27.10.2020, vide document No.3581 of 2020. The settlement deed was acted upon and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.
3. While being so, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.06.2022 on the basis of false complaint given by a third party and the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 11.07.2022 and submitted all his document for his consideration. Thereafter, the respondent has cancelled the gift settlement deed of the petitioner. The issue of power of cancellation of the registered documents was dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.15867 of 2021 held that 77A is unconstitutional and stuck down. The case of M.Kathirvel and others V. Inspector General of Registration reported in 2024 (4) CTC 769, is held as follows:- "172. The following Writ Appeals are against the Order passed by the respective learned Single Judges of this Court either allowing or dismissing the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the Show Cause Notices under Section 77-A
of the Act for cancellation of Sale Deeds or challenging the Show Cause Notices issued by District Registrars in connection with the enquiry under Section 77-A of the Act. Since this Court has already held that Section 77-A is unconstitutional and that Registrar has no power to cancel the document de hors Section 77-A of the Act, the Writ Appeals and the consequential Writ Petitions are disposed of as indicated in the following table:
Writ Appeal No.
Allowed/ Dismissed Writ Petition No.
Allowed/ Dismissed 3483/2023 Allowed 29352/2023 Allowed 3458,3469 & 3465/2023 Allowed 29354,29357 & 29335/2023 Allowed 2918/2023 Allowed 7908/2023 Dismissed 2924,2917 & 2915/2023 Allowed 7917,7906 & 7912/2023 Dismissed 850/2023 Allowed 3379/2023 Allowed 2963/2023 Allowed 6448/2023 Allowed 3298/2023 Dismissed 18814/2023 Dismissed 3227/2023 Allowed 19293/2023 Allowed 59/2024 Allowed 19256/2023 Allowed 2386/2023 Allowed 9313/2023 Allowed 2893/2023 Allowed 740/2023 Dismissed 3260/2023 Dismissed 13513/2023 Dismissed 2211/2023 Allowed 17956/2023 Allowed 575/2023 Allowed 28912/2023 Allowed
173. W.P.(MD) Nos.8653, 5413, 6457, 6443, 6556, 4983, 5396, 15120, 5492, 5449, 8999, 5782, 5419, 6333, 6215, 13994, 8421, 6709, 9163, 6686, 11273, 14567, 11121, 8768, 7444, 12885, 5497, 8832 of 2023 & 14546, 21199 of 2022; 11890, 15105,
15553, 15477, 15020, 8558, 9975, 14353, 10852, 13147, 2734, 10718, 13000, 8095, 10352, 8175, 15129, 15172, 9936, 8653, 7262, 7836, 10818, 12694, 14055, 10729, 9554, 7385, 9919, 13995, 9550, 13330, 11891, 6850, 5399, 8814, 8550, 8765, 6686, 10993 8600, 7920, 9563, 10705, 29682, 10378, 9523, 14402, 9024, 7852, 7052, 9556, 7088, 9120, 14069, 8836, 7958, 7444, 8832, 15557, 14567, 11121, 11273, 9024, 9163, 7267, 6709 & 12885 of 2023 & W.P. No.831 of 2022 & W.P. No.7267 of 2023: The above Writ Petitions are filed for issuing directions to Respondents to consider the Representations of the respective Petitioners. The Representations of the Petitioners in all these cases are to cancel the registration of the documents which are before amendment. Since we have held that Section 77-A is unconstitutional and assuming that it is constitutionally valid, it can only operate prospectively, all the following Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
[173a. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.5613 of 2023 submitted that the Writ Petition is filed challenging the Constitutional vires of Section 77-A. However, in Paragraph No.173, the said Writ Petition has now been dismissed as if the Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation of the Petitioner. On verification of records, this Court found that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is true. Hence, W.P.(MD) No.5613 of 2023 is allowed as prayed for.]
174. W.P. Nos. 10291 of 2022, 15128, 31128, 15905, 9125, 8445, 2792, 20907, 19264 & 11009 of 2023, W.P.(MD) Nos.9534, 9770, 5418, 9681, 18274, 14865, 13770, 9691, 5108, 13385, 9638, 4840, 10315, 6288, 15197, 15822, 18883, 18419, 13642 of 2023 & 4073, 19148 of 2022:
The above Writ Petitions are filed to quash the Notice or proceedings issued by the District Registrar/Inspector General of Registration, in exercise of his power under Section 77-A of the Registration Act to cancel the registered document. All the documents which are sought to be cancelled or registration of which are sought to be cancelled, are executed before amendment. Since this Court has now held that Section 77-A is prospective, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned Notices or proceedings issued by District Registrar/Inspector General of Registration, in exercise of his power for conducting enquiry under Section 77-A are quashed.
[174a. Mr. D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(MD) No.13824 of 2023 submitted that the Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order of the District Registrar refusing to cancel registration of the document. Therefore, the decision of the District Registrar is in favour of the private Respondents. However, vide Judgment, dated 2.8.2024, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition along with the batch, had inadvertently allowed the Writ Petition in
Paragraph No.174, as if the Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings issued by the District Registrar, cancelling registration of documents in exercise of his power under Section 77-A of the Act. Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 6, W.P.(MD) No.13824 of 2023 stands dismissed.]
175. W.P.(MD) Nos. 14674, 7704, 8987 of 2023; 16445 of 2022; W.P. Nos. 10604 of 2020, 17719, 12480, 24805, 24610 of 2022 & 10858 of 2023:
The above Writ Petitions have been filed with a prayer for cancellation of documents or for cancelling registration of documents, which are long before the amendment came. In view of the decision this Court had taken that Section 77-A as introduced by the amendment is unconstitutional, all the above Writ Petitions are dismissed as there is no scope for enquiry now under Section 77-A of the Act.
176. W.P.(MD) Nos. 12208, 13666, 9213, 14121, 13172, 13895, 13746, 3419 of 2023, 8679/2023, W.P.Nos. 15543, 13188, 22561, 31075, 31079 of 2023; W.A. No.2963, 2211, 2386 of 2023, 575 of 2024: W.P. Nos. 15557. 13567, 8305, 10525, 22570, 9386, 15825 of 2023:
The above Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Orders passed by the District Registrar cancelling the document on the ground that the registration of the document are in contravention of Section 22-A and Section 22-B. In view of the decision taken by this Court by declaring Section 77-A is unconstitutional, all these
Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned Order passed by the respective District Registrars by invoking the power under Section 77 are set aside.
[176a. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.8357 of 2023 is filed to quash the impugned Order passed by the District Registrar, dated 19.12.2022 as illegal. The Order of the District Registrar is in exercise of power under Section 77-A of the Act. A Representation was submitted by one B.Nagaraja. In the Representation, the said Nagaraja stated that his father by name Thiru.V.Balasubramanian died on 24.4.2017. It is stated further that after the death of his father, he is entitled to inherit the property along with his mother and three daughters. However, one V.Balasubramanian by impersonation, executed a Sale Deed by committing forgery. During the enquiry, the Registering Officer found that the father of the Complainant died on 24.4.
2017 and the Complainant has obtained the Death Certificate as well as the Legal Heirship Certificate to show that the Complainant and his sibblings are the Legal Heirs of his deceased father. However, three years later, a different person created a forged Sale Deed as if Complainant's father Mr.V.Balasubramanian executed a Deed of Conveyance, by fabricating forged Aadhar Card and other documents. It was alleged that a Third party, created a forged Sale Deed by forgery and impersonation. The District Registrar entertained the Complaint as there was no Interim Stay passed by any Court during pendency of the Writ Petitions.
has been registered by committing fraud, forgery and impersonation. From the proceedings of the District Registrar, dated 19.12.2022, it is seen that the District Registrar, unlike in other cases, has elaborately considered the facts and materials placed before him and passed a detailed Order holding that the registration was obtained by committing fraud, forgery and impersonation. Even though this Court has held that the District Registrar has no power under the Registration Act to cancel registration of documents, this Court has also held that registration of such document can be cancelled by this Court by exercising its Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of fraud or impersonation.
This Court in appropriate cases entertained Writ Petitions, if documents are registered by committing fraud or impersonation if it can be demonstrated on admitted facts or by documents, which are admitted. Even though order of District Registrar is without jurisdiction, this Court can cancel registration in extreme cases of fraud and impersonation if this happened due to failure in adhering to procedure required to be followed. Since this Court has not heard the Writ Petition on merits, this Writ Petition, namely, W.P.(MD)No.8357 of 2023 is delinked and this may be heard independently on merits by the Bench concerned in accordance with the findings and observations of this Court made in W.P.No.10291 of 2022, etc. batch vide Order, dated 2.8.2024.] W.P. No.
177. Since this Court holds that Section 22-B is not unconstitutional, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. W.P. No.4161 of 2024:
178. Section 68(2) of Registration Act was interpreted to confer power on the District Registrar to cancel the document for irregularities in registration. As this Court has already held that Section 77-A of the Act is unconstitutional as it is contrary to the object of the Act, any circular or order or direction enabling the District Registrar or Registering Officer to cancel registration or invalidating any transaction is unconstitutional and hence, the impugned Circular, dated 8.11.2017 is declared as unconstitutional. The Writ Petition stands allowed."
4.Therefore, there is no scope for entertaining any application under Section 77A of the registration Act. In view of the above, the order passed by the respondents 3 and 4 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. 5.That apart, the provision under Section 77A of the Registration Act came into force by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 41 of 2022, w.e.f. 06.08.2022. This provision is prospective in nature and it cannot be used for the documents which were registered before 06.08.2022. Admittedly, the
settlement deed was executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner on 27.10.2020 that is much prior to the enactment of the provision under Section 77A of the Registration Act.
6. With the above said observations, this writ petitions stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 20.11.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR To 1.The District Registrar, O/o.District Registrar Office(Madurai South), No.171, Aranmanisalai, Madurai South, Madurai District.
2.The Thasildar, O/o.Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai District.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, RJR 20.11.2024