Madras High Court

K.Natarajan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 10 September, 2024

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

                                                                               W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2023


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 10.09.2024

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                              W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2023
                                           and W.M.P.(MD)No.2685 of 2023


                K.Natarajan                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                      Vs.


                1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                  Santhome High Road, Chennai.

                2.The District Registrar,
                  Tiruchirapalli.

                3.The Sub Registrar,
                  Thirverambur,
                  Tiruchirapalli District.

                4.Malliga H Patel,

                5.Poornima M Patel

                6.Sneha Mohan Patel                                         .... Respondents

                PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3
                herein to forthwith cancel the settlement deed dated 09.06.2020 in Doc. No.2130


                1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2023


                of 2020 on the file of the 3rd Respondent herein in respect of the properties of an
                extent 0.45.5 hectares in Survey No.31/1A, 1.54.5 hectares in Survey No.32/2A,
                0.51.0 hectares in Survey No.31/1C, 0.65.0 hectares in Survey No.28/2, 0.22.5
                hectares in Survey No.27/1A, 0.03.5 hectares in Survey No.32/1A 0.31.0 hectares
                in Survey No.28/1A and 0.30.0 hectares in Survey No.26/4A of Elanthaipatti
                Village, Thiruverambur Taluk, Trichy District.


                                          For Petitioner         : M/S.AL.Ganthimathi,
                                                                   Senior Counsel for
                                                                   Mr.C.Mahadevan

                                          For Respondents        : Mr.C.Sathesh,
                                                                   Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3



                                                            ORDER

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

Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith cancel the

settlement deed dated 09.06.2020 in Doc. No.2130 of 2020 on the file of the 3rd

Respondent herein in respect of the properties of an extent 0.45.5 hectares in

Survey No.31/1A, 1.54.5 hectares in Survey No.32/2A, 0.51.0 hectares in Survey

No.31/1C, 0.65.0 hectares in Survey No.28/2, 0.22.5 hectares in Survey No.27/1A,

0.03.5 hectares in Survey No.32/1A 0.31.0 hectares in Survey No.28/1A and

0.30.0 hectares in Survey No.26/4A of Elanthaipatti Village, Thiruverambur Taluk,

Trichy District.

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

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the

materials available on record.

3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the private respondents had

impersonated the petitioner and created some fraudulent sale deeds in the year

2012 and 2013 and those sale deeds have already been cancelled by the District

Registrar, Trichy on 20.05.2020, based on the complaint given by the petitioner.

Even after cancellation, now a settlement deed dated 09.06.2020 has been created

by one Poornima Patel as if she is the absolute owner of the property. Hence, the

petitioner has given a complaint to cancel the settlement deed dated 09.06.2020.

Since no action was taken, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that though the parent documents have already been cancelled by the District

Registrar, Trichy by an order dated 20.05.2020, the private respondents had

created a fraudulent settlement deed dated 09.06.2020, based on the said cancelled

parent document. Therefore, the said settlement deed has to be cancelled.

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

5. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the Registering Authorities

have no power to go into all these issues. Even assuming that if Section 77-A is in

vogue, the settlement deed, subsequently executed by the parties, will not fall

within the ambit of forged documents. Therefore, Section 77-A also cannot be

invoked. As far as the cancellation of the sale deed is concerned, the law is well

settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, wherein 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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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:

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

“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 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.”

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

6. In view of the above settled position of law, unless the power is

specifically vested with the Registering authority to go into the matter, there

cannot be any direction to cancel the document. All these facts cannot be looked

into by authorities and the same has to be agitated before the civil Court.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is for

the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil Court. There shall be no

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

10.09.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsm

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

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar, Tiruchirapalli.