Madras High Court
C.Kumarasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum on 7 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD) No.25538 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD) No.25538 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.21658 & 21659 of 2024
1.C.Kumarasamy
2.K.Venkadesh ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub Collector
Cheranmahadevi
Tirunelveli
2.The Tahsildar
Radhapuram Taluk
Tirunelveli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order
passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.(AA2)862/2024 dated
19.09.2024 and the consequential impugned notice issued by the first
respondent in A3/44/2024 dated 21.09.2024 and quash the same .
_______________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.25538 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated
19.09.2024, passed by the second respondent, recommending the first
respondent to cancel the licence granted to the petitioners' marriage hall and
the consequential notice, dated 21.09.2024, issued by the first respondent,
directing the petitioners to appear for enquiry on 30.09.2024.
2. The land in Survey No.369/A1, to an extent of 0.34.0 Hectares,
in Survey No.369/A2, to an extent of 0.13.5 Hectares, in Survey No.369/A4,
to an extent of 0.00.5 Hectares and in Survey No.369/A5, to an extent of
0.09.5 Hectares, total extent of 1.89 Acres, in Samoogarengapuram,
Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, was originally belonged to one Alwar
Reddiar. He died leaving behind his son Venkatachala Reddiar. Later, the
said Venkatachala Reddiar died leaving behind his wife V.N.Nagalakshmi and
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
son V.Iyyappan. As such, the said V.N.Nagalakshmi and V.Iyyappan inherited
the said property and enjoyed the same jointly. Subsequently, they sold the
said property in favour of the petitioners, under a sale deed, dated
23.03.1999, registered as document No.301 of 1999. Thereafter, the
petitioners partitioned the said property under a partition deed dated
28.05.2014 and registered as document No.1362 of 2014. Thereafter, the first
petitioner settled his share to his son / second petitioner, under a settlement
deed dated 19.07.2017 and registered as document No.1555 of 2017.
Subsequently, the second petitioner mortgaged the said property under a
mortgage deed dated 16.11.2017 and registered as document No.2831 of
2017, in favour of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Kallikulam Branch,
Radhapuram Taluk, and availed loan.
3. In such circumstances, after a lapse of 24 years, one Narayana
Reddiyar and one Muthuraja lodged a complaint before the District Registrar
(Admn), Tirunelveli, seeking to cancel the sale deeds registered as document
Nos.301 of 1999, 1362 of 2014, 1555 of 2017 and 2831 of 2017, by invoking
Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, alleging that the vendors of the
petitioners had no title over the property. On receipt of the said complaint, an
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enquiry was conducted and the District Registrar passed an order, dated
25.04.2023, cancelling the sale deeds as fraudulent documents. Challenging
the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.12204 of
2024 before this Court, wherein this Court had granted an order of interim
stay and the said interim order is in force.
4. In such circumstances, the Honourable Division Bench of this
Court in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, reported in
2024 (4) CTC 769, has held the very Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908
as unconstituonal and ultra vires and accordingly, the Division Bench of this
Court struck down the Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908.
5. After purchase of the subject property, the petitioners have
constructed a marriage hall in the name and style of “KPC Mahal” and the
second respondent has also issued licence to the petitioner under the Tamil
Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965, on 12.04.2024, which is valid
upto 11.04.2027.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. While that being the position, the second respondent issued the
impugned notice stating that the title deeds were already cancelled by the
District Registrar (Admn) under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and
as such, the licence issued in favour of the petitioner is not valid and
therefore, the petitioners have no right to retain the licence. Though the
petitioner submitted before the second respondent that the Section 77-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 has already been struck down by the Honourable
Division Bench of this Court, the second respondent has passed the impugned
order dated 19.09.2024 recommending the first respondent to cancel the
licence issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, the first respondent issued the
impugned notice dated 21.09.2024, directing the petitioners to appear for
enquiry on 30.09.2024.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
8. A perusal of the materials shows that the complainants before
the District Registrar, namely, Narayana Reddiyar and Muthuraja have alleged
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the vendors of the petitioners have no title over the subject property and
by suppressing the same, they sold the subject property to the petitioners.
Furthermore, the said Narayana Reddiyar and Muthuraja have lodged the
complaint after nearly 24 years. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
view that if the said Narayana Reddiyar and Muthuraja have any grievance in
respect of title over the subject property, they have to necessarily approach the
competent Civil Court for appropriate relief instead of approaching the District
Registrar.
9. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to note that the
Honourable Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel's case has
categorically held that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide title
over the property and therefore, he cannot entertain any complaint and nullify
the registered deeds. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted
hereunder:
“173. WP.(MD).Nos.8653, 5413, 6457, 6443, 6556,
4983, 5396, 15120, 5492, 5449, 5613, 8999, 5782, 5419,
6333, 6215, 13994, 8421, 6709, 9163, 6686, 11273,
14567, 11121, 8768, 7444, 12885, 5497, 8832/2023 and
14546, 21199/2022 ; 11890, 15105, 15553, 15477,
15020, 8558, 9975, 14353, 10852, 13147, 2734, 10718,
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 /2023 & WP.No.831/2022 & WP.Nos.7267/2023-
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.
174. WP.Nos.10291/2022, 15128, 31128, 15905,
9125, 8445, 2792, 20907, 19264 & 11009/2023, WP.
(MD).Nos.9534, 9770, 5418, 9681, 18274, 14865, 13770,
9691, 5108, 13385, 9638, 4840, 10315, 13824, 6288,
15197, 15822, 18883, 18419, 13642 of 2023 & 4073,
19148/2022:-
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
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
175. WP.(MD).Nos.14674, 7704, 8987/2023 ;
16445,/2022 ; WP.Nos.10604/2020, 17719, 12480,
24805, 24610/2022 and 10858/2023.
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. WP.(MD).Nos.8357, 12208, 13666, 9213,
14121, 13172, 13895, 13746, 3419 of 2023, 8679/2023,
WP.Nos.15543, 13188, 22561, 31075, 31079/2023 ;
WA.No.2963, 2211, 2386/2023, 575/2024 ; WP.Nos.
15557, 13567, 8305, 10525, 22570, 9386, 15825/2023:-
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. WP.No.26952/2023:-
177.Since this Court holds that Section 22-B is not
unconstitutional, the writ petition is partly allowed.
WP.No.4161/2024:-
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 08.11.2017 is declared as
unconstitutional. The writ petition stands allowed.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
179.In view of our conclusions reached above on
every point we have taken for determination in these cases,
this Court finds that there is no scope for entertaining any
application under Section 77-A of the Act. Similarly, the
power under Section 22-A and Section 22-B of the Act can
be exercised only when the jurisdictional issue as indicated
in our judgment can be decided on the admitted facts or on
the materials which are not in dispute. Till such time the
Government frames guidelines in the manner provided by
the Full Bench and Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High
Court, the directions issued by the Division Bench of this
Court in Sudha Ravikumar and Another Vs. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai and
Others [2017 SCC Online Mad 19191 : 2017 [4] MLJ 445] is
binding on the Registering Authority and the Registering
Authority shall meticulously follow the directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.09.2024,
passed by the second respondent and the consequential impugned notice
dated 21.09.2024, issued by the first respondent, cannot be sustained and
they are liable to be quashed.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the second respondent and the
consequential impugned notice dated 21.09.2024, issued by the first
respondent, are hereby quashed. The complainants before the District
Registrar (Admn) is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for
appropriate relief in the manner known to law, if they are so advised. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.11.2024
(2/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
krk
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.21658 & 21659 of
07.11.2024
(2/2)
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
