Madras High Court
K.Manju vs The District Registrar on 1 August, 2023
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.21051 of 2023
K.Manju ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Govt. Of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 012.
2. Indumathi ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the District Registrar,
Puducherry, the 1st respondent herein vide his proceedings bearing
No.4225/DRP-237/DRO/RD/2022/255 dated 17.05.2023 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh
For Respondents :
(for R1) : Mr.P.S.Kothanda Raman,
Government Advocate (Puducherry)
(For R2) : Mr.T.M.Naveen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order dated
17.05.2023, passed by the District Registrar (Puducherry).
2. The petitioner states that she is the owner of the property more
fully described in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The
second respondent filed a complaint to cancel one settlement deed and four
sale deeds executed in favour of the writ petitioner. The District Registrar
conducted an inquiry under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act and
cancelled the sale deed on the ground of fraud. Thus, the petitioner is
constrained to move the present writ petition.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner is that
the District Registrar (Puducherry) has no powers to cancel the registered
documents. In the absence of any such power, the District Registrar has
cancelled all the documents by allowing a complaint filed by the second
respondent.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that against the District
Registrar, who passed the impugned order i.e., Mr.M.S.Ramesh, a criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
case was registered. That apart, the very same District Registrar i.e.,
M.S.Ramesh registered sale deeds in respect of the temple properties to a
vast extent and those allegations are also under investigation. However, the
learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government of
Puducherry made a submission that no case has been registered under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. When a public servant is involved in such
nature of criminal cases, a case under Prevention of Corruption Act is also
to be initiated. Thus, the first respondent must ensure that in the criminal
case, provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is also included for the
purpose of proceeding with the criminal cases.
5. The powers of the Registering Authority under the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908, to cancel the registered documents are well
enumerated by the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in the case of Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767. The Relevant portion of said
Judgment reads as under:-
“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration)
stands discharged, once the documents is registered
(see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan) Section 17
of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require
compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
such document referred to in Section 17 (1) (b).
Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents,
registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act
deals with documents containing interlineations,
blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides
for description of property and maps or plans and
Section 22 deals with the description of houses and
land by reference to government maps and surveys.
There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which
empowers the Registrar to recall such registration.
The fact whether the document was properly
presented for registration cannot be reopened by the
Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel
the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of
any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to
assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be
competent to cancel the registration of the documents
in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector
General is limited to do superintendence of
Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf.
Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel
the registration of any document which has already
been registered.”
6. Relying on the above Judgement, the learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterated that the District Registrar erroneously exercised his
jurisdiction by entertaining the complaint and adjudicated the issues on
merits. In paragraph 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“36. If the document is required to be compulsorily
registered, but while doing so some irregularity
creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent
action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the
other party to the extinguishment deed presented by
the Society before the Registering Officer by no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
standard can be said to be a fraudulent action per se.
The fact whether that was done deceitfully to cause
loss and harm to the other party to the deed, is a
question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by
the party making such allegation. That fact cannot be
presumed. Suffice it to observe that since the
provisions in the 1908 Act enables the Registering
Officer to register the documents presented for
registration by one party and execution thereof to be
admitted or denied by the other party thereafter, it is
unfathomable as to how the registration of the
document by following procedure specified in the
1908 Act can be said to be fraudulent. As
aforementioned, some irregularity in the procedure
committed during the registration process would not
lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the
document, but a case of mere irregularity. In either
case, the party aggrieved by such registration of
document is free to challenge its validity before the
Civil Court.”
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Let us examine the reason given by the District Registrar,
Puducherry, in the impugned order for declaring the registered documents
as fraudulent deeds.
8. It is stated that the District Registrar initiated proceedings based
on the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Puducherry
dated 05.08.2021, in connection with the execution of fraudulent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
registration of documents, as per the outcome of the direction of the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.No.10177 of 2021 dated
17.06.2021.
9. Admittedly, there is no power provided under the Registration
Act, 1908, for the District Registrar to cancel the document unlike Tamil
Nadu amendment.
10. When the District Registrar has no power to adjudicate the civil
rights of the parties, he ought not to have issued any such declaration
declaring the registered document as “fraudulently registered deeds”. Such
a power has been conferred only on the Civil Court and such declarations
cannot be given based on summary proceedings.
11. In the event of declaring the document as fraudulent by the
District Registrar, merely by conducting summary proceedings, it would
infringe the civil rights of the parties regarding the properties and more so
right to property is in the nature of constitutional right under Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India and such right can be taken away only by the
authority of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
12. The manner in which the allegation in the complaints are
enquired into would apparently show that the District Registrar has
exceeded his jurisdiction beyond the scope of the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908, since adjudication of the case on merits is
impermissible.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order
passed by the first respondent in proceeding bearing No.4225/DRP-
237/DRO/RD/2022/255 dated 17.05.2023 is quashed. The second
respondent is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court of law for
the purpose of establishing her right.
14. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(sha) 01.08.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,
(sha)
To
The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Govt. Of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 012.
W.P.No.21681 of 2023
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
