K.Ramarpandi vs The Inspector General Of Registration
2024 Latest Caselaw 15548 Mad

Madras High Court

K.Ramarpandi vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 12 August, 2024

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

                                                                              W.P.(MD)No.19036 of 2019


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 12.08.2024

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                              W.P.(MD)No.19036 of 2019
                                           and W.M.P.(MD)No.15337 of 2019


                K.Ramarpandi                                                ... Petitioner


                                                         Vs.

                1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                  Chennai.

                2.The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration,
                  Combined Registration Office Buillding,
                  St.Mark's Street,
                  Sankar Colony, Palayamkottai,
                  Tirunelveli – 627 002.

                3.The District Registrar,
                  District Registrar Office,
                  No.57, Railway Feeder Road,
                  Tenkasi – 627 811.

                4.The Sub Registrar,
                  Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

                5.Balakrishnan                                              .... Respondents




                1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                            W.P.(MD)No.19036 of 2019


                PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records relating to
                the impugned proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent in No.112/A2/2019 dated
                20.08.2019, quash the same as illegal.


                                           For Petitioner             : Mr.R.J.Karthick
                                           For Respondents            : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
                                                                        Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4
                                                                        Mr.V.Janakiramulu for R5




                                                             ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorari, Calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by

the 3rd respondent in No.112/A2/2019 dated 20.08.2019 and quash the same as

illegal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel

appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the

subject property by way of registered sale deed dated 01.07.2013 from one

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thirukotti and his legal heirs. However, on the basis of the complaint given by the

5th respondent, the third respondent has conducted an enquiry and annulled the

petitioner's document through the impugned order dated 20.08.2019. Challenging

the same the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner's vendor has no title to

the subject property and the 5th respondent has a title to the subject property.

Therefore, he has given a complaint to the effect that the sale in favour of the

petitioner is not valid and sought to cancel the document. Based on the complaint,

the third respondent conducted an enquiry and passed the impugned order by

annulling the petitioner's document. Hence, opposed this petition.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of

the view that the Registering Authority has no power to go into all these

transactions. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power

conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the

registration of the document already registered. Sections 22-A and 22-B were

inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2022 respectively to prevent

registration of certain category of the documents. Thereafter, Section 77-A has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

been brought by Act 41 of 2022 to cancel the document registered in contravention

of Sections 22-A and 22-B not beyond it. Now Section 77-A of the Registration

Act, 1908 also is struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch as unconditional. Such being the position, this Court

is of the definite view that the title cannot be decided by the Registering

Authorities. These facts have been discussed by this Court in W.P.No.29706 of

2022 [G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others] and

the Order in the writ petition is as follows:

“... 3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The execution of documents and its validity, the right created or extinguished is governed by the substantive law namely the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 relates to the factum of registration alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77 has held as follows:

“The Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions. The whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions embodied therein. Thereby only the notice of the public is drawn.”

4. The practice has been developed in the recent past in Tamil Nadu to entertain the applications given by the so-called affected parties to cancel all the documents under the pretext of either forgery or fradulent transactions. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu has brought out Circular No.67 dated 03.11.20211 to deal with the fraudulent registrations through impersonation. The said circular is mainly

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of YanalaMalleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma, reported in AIR 2007 AP 57. However, the three bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that the power of the Registrar, under the Registration Act, is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. The same is extracted hereunder:

“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad

Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787] ). 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

document which has already been registered.”

5. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that and in the absence of any express power to cancel the registered document, the Registrar has no power to cancel the document. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 relied upon by the Registration Department to substantiate the circular in this regard, when carefully seen. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:

“68. Power of Registration to superintend and control Sub Registrars.

(1) every Sub Registrar perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub Registrar is situate.

(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (Whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.”

6. The above provision makes it clear that the said section confers power upon the Registrar to supervise and control all the acts of the Sub- Registar. Sub-Section 2 empowers the Registrar to issue any order consistent with the Act, which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. Similarly, the Registrar shall also have power in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered. The above power empowering the Registar to issue any order is a power of superitendence and supervision and not a power vested to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

cancel the registration of the document. Therefore, relying upon Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and issuing such circular cannot be valid in the eye of law. Unless a specific power and express provision is made in the Act empowering the Registrar to cancel the document, such powers cannot be conferred by the Inspector General of Registration by taking aid of 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.”

5. In view of the above settled position of law, the order of the third

respondent is without jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order has to be quashed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order

passed by the third respondent dated 20.08.2019 is quashed. If at all the fifth

respondent is still pursued his remedy, it is for him to file an appropriate suit

before the Civil Court in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

vsm To

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

2.The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Combined Registration Office Buillding, St.Mark's Street, Sankar Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002.

3.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, No.57, Railway Feeder Road, Tenkasi – 627 811.

4.The Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

12.08.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis