Madras High Court
M/S.Cheran Co-Operative House ... vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 2 July, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.3817 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.07.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.3817 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.4523 of 2020
M/s.Cheran Co-operative House Building Society,
Represented by its President,
No.B2 (b) Cheran Nagar,
Kavundampalayam,
Gnanambika Mills Post, Coimbatore. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing),
Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies (Housing),
Coimbatore.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
3.A.Raja
(R3 impleaded vide order dated 28.04.2023
made in W.M.P.No.24371 of 2020
in W.P.No.3817 of 2020) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the order dated 07.05.2019 on the file of the second respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P.No.3817 of 2020
Na.Ka.No.213 of 2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct
the second respondent to cancel the Construction Agreement dated 24.01.2014
bearing Doc.No.801 of 2014 by implementing the order passed by the first
respondent in Thava No.01/2018-19/SAPA dated 04.03.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumaresan
For Respondents :
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Anandakumar
Government Advocate
For R3 : No appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a certiorarified
mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 07.05.2019 on
the file of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.213 of 2019 and quash the same
as illegal and consequentially direct the second respondent to cancel the
Construction Agreement dated 24.01.2024 bearing Doc.No.801 of 2024 by
implementing the order passed by the first respondent in Thava No.01/2018-
19/SAPA dated 04.03.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner Society is that the petitioner Society entered
an Agreement with one A.Raja having Membership No.6927, who is working as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conductor at Uppilipalayam, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(TNSTC), Coimbatore District. As per the Society by-law, Society property will
be allotted only to the members who does not have any property either in his
name, his wife or his children. The petitioner further submitted that
fraudulently the said A.Raja joined in the Palladam Housing Scheme through
his application dated 21.10.2011. On 08.12.2016, the petitioner Society
verified with the deductions of Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) and it was
found that the said A.Raja have obtained another allotment with Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) Employment Housing Society. Hence,
the petitioner Society filed a petition in Thava No.01/2018-2019/SAPA before
the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative (Housing) the first respondent herein. On
04.03.2019, the first respondent passed an order by cancelling the status of the
membership of the said A.Raja by disqualifying him from membership and
consequentially cancelling the Construction Agreement dated 24.01.2014
bearing Doc.No.801 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Palladam
Taluk, Tiruppur District.
3. The further case of the petitioner Society is that following the order
passed by the first respondent, a communication was sent by the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Society to the second respondent on 06.05.2019, to cancel the Construction
Agreement dated 24.01.2014. In this regard, the District Registrar
(Registration), Tiruppur, has sought for clarification from the Inspector General
of Registration, Chennai. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai,
through his Letter dated Nil.11.2019 replied to the District Registrar
(Registration), Tiruppur, that there is no clarification required in the said issue.
The petitioner Society have given representation dated 27.08.2019 to the
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, to cancel the Construction
Agreement. Despite the representation, the second respondent through his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.213 of 2019 dated 07.05.2019, without any reasons,
have summarily rejected the representation stating that they have to work out
the remedy through Court. Hence, challenging the impugned order dated
07.05.2019 in Na.Ka.No.213 of 2019 passed by the second respondent, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first
respondent has passed the order on 04.03.2019 and the Construction
Agreement dated 24.01.2014 was entered between the petitioner and the third
respondent and the Allotment Order issued by the petitioner Society to the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent allotting Plot No.77 (House No.C33) situated at S.F.No.152/1A2,
Madhappur Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, can be cancelled.
Based on the above order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner Society
submitted the document to the second respondent to cancel the Construction
Agreement dated 24.01.2024 bearing Doc.No.801 of 2014. But, the same was
refused by the second respondent. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner Society
has come forward with the present writ petition.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent
has filed Counter Affidavit. Relevant paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit is
extracted hereunder:-
“5. With regard to the other averments made in the
affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that there is no provision
in the Registration Act, 1908, to cancel the registered
document by the registering officer either on the
representation of a person or suo motu. It has been well
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors, (2016) 10 SCC 767, as under:-
“Para 21: The role of the Sub-Registrar
(Registration) stands discharged, once the
document is registered ..... 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
expenses provision in that behalf, it is not open to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
Para 25:- The aggrieved party can
challenge the registration and validity of the
document before the Civil Court.”
6. In view of the above said judgment the recourse to the
Petitioner is to file only civil suit seeking discredit of the
registered document which infringes its right and as such this
Writ Petition is maintainable and liable to be dismissed.”
6. It is settled law that the Construction Agreement cannot be cancelled
by the registering authority in view of the above Judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Hence, the only remedy available to the petitioner Society is to
approach the Civil Court to cancel the Construction Agreement as well as the
Allotment Order issued to the third respondent.
7. The order passed by the first respondent is dated 04.03.2019 and the
writ petition was filed on 31.01.2020. If the limitation period is calculated from
04.03.2019, it expired on 04.03.2022, since there was a Covid-19 pandemic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period from March 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted
exemption to the delay for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. If this
period is calculated, then the petitioner Society is within the period of limitation
of three years and they can very well approach the Civil Court by filing Civil
Suit seeking the above relief.
8. The period of the pendency of the writ petition from 31.01.2020 to till
date i.e., on 02.07.2024 is excluded for the period of calculating the limitation
period for approaching the Civil Court.
9. In view of the above, the petitioner Society is directed to approach the
Civil Court for appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.
10. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations and
directions. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.07.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing),
Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies (Housing),
Coimbatore.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
arb
and
02.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
