Madras High Court
Mrs.S.Bhuvaneswari vs Special Secretary on 19 July, 2023
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
1. Mrs.S.Bhuvaneswari
2. Mrs.K.Kalyani
3. Mrs.R.Eswari
4. Mrs.K.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Special Secretary,
Government of Puducherry,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Office of Inspector General of Registration,
Puducherry.
2.The District Registrar,
New Saram,
Puducherry-605 008.
3.Smt.Vasantha
4.Mr.G.Suresh,
5.Mr.Mahalingam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
6.Mr.N.Ravi
7.The Sub-Registrar
Villianur Sub-Registrar Office,
Pondicherry ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the impugned proceeding No.7112/ DRDM/ C3/ Regn./ 2017
dated 11.07.2017 of the first respondent herein and quash the same and
consequentially direct the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to pass
appropriate order to cancel the forgery documents:
(i) No.1165/ 1994 executed on 31.03.1994 and registered on 03.06.1994;
(ii) Alleged sale deed under document No.2013 of 1997 dated 27.10.1997
for the part of 66.00 sq.mt. out of 108 sq.mt;
(iii) Alleged further sale deed under Document No.1160 of 2000 dated
01.06.2000 for the same property.
(iv) Alleged sale deed for the remaining part of 42 sq.mt. of vacant land
under sale deed document No.817 of 2003 dated 26.03.2003; by strictly
complying with the provisions of the Circular
NO.8969/REGN/C3/DRDM/2014 dated 18.03.2015 passed by the first
respondent herein.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Thangavel
For Respondents :
(R1, R2 & R7) : Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar,
Govt.Advocate (Puducherry)
(R3, R4 & R6) : No Appearance
(R5) : Not ready in Notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the
impugned proceedings dated 11.07.2017 issued by the first respondent and
consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the forged
document as described in the writ petition. The petitioners state that they
are the absolute owners of the property morefully described in the present
writ petition.
2.The respondents 3 to 6 executed certain fraudulent documents and
to cancel the said documents, the petitioners submitted an application to the
second respondent / District Registrar. The second respondent passed the
impugned order stating that the documents registered cannot be cancelled
under the Registration Act and accordingly, relegated the petitioners to
approach the competent Civil Court of law for the purpose of redressal of
their grievances.
3.Unlike the Government of Tamil Nadu, there is no amendment
issued conferring power on the District Registrar to cancel the registered
document under the Registration Act. In the absence of any power to cancel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
the document under the Registration Act, the authorities under the
provisions of the Registration Act is not vested with the powers to cancel.
4.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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
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.?”
5.In view of the fact that there is no provision under the Registration
Act conferring powers on the District Registrar to cancel the registered
document, the petitioners have no option but to approach the competent
Civil Court of law for appropriate relief. Thus, this Court do not find any
infirmity in respect of the orders passed by the respondents and the
petitioners are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of law for the purpose
of redressal of their grievances.
6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
(sha) 19.07.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,
(sha)
To
1. Special Secretary,
Government of Puducherry,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Office of Inspector General of Registration,
Puducherry.
2.The District Registrar,
New Saram,
Puducherry-605 008.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Villianur Sub-Registrar Office,
Pondicherry.
W.P.No.24508 of 2017
19.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
