Madras High Court
T.Aruna vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 20 February, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.19871 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.19216 of 2023
T.Aruna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai Zone,
Chennai.
3.The Assistant Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
South Chennai,
Chennai.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Velachery, Chennai 600 042.
5.M.S.Elamurugu
6.S.Durai
7.K.Sambandan ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings dated 17.02.2023 passed in Na.Ka.No.5386/A1/2021 quash the same and
consequently direct the 4th respondent herein to remove the entries made in the Index
Register, recording the order of the 2nd respondent herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Babu
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakan for R5
No Appearance for R6 and R7
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 17.02.2023, confirming the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated
09.10.2021, declaring the documents registered as Document Nos.2813 of 2013 and 15
of 2014 as fake documents and further directing the Sub Registrar to make necessary
entries in the Encumbrance Certificate.
2.Heard Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the 5th respondent.
3.In the case in hand, the District Registrar and the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration had presumably exercised the power under Section 68 of the Registration
Act. The Division Bench of this Court in Dr.P.V.R.K. Anjaneeya Guptha vs.
M.Anbazhagan and others reported in 2024 4 CTC 1 has categorically held that the
power under Section 68 of the Registration Act is only limited to the Superintendence
of the Registration Officers and to make rules in that regard and it cannot go beyond the
mandate of the provision. Apart from that, in the judgment in M.Kathirvel vs. The
Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and others reported in
2024 4 CTC 769 in Paragraph Nos.178 and 179, it has been held as follows:
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 out conclusions reached above on every point we
have taken for determinations in these cases, this Court finds that there
is no scope for entertaining any Application under 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 Ravi Kumar and another vs. Special Commissioner and
Commissioner, HR &CE, Chennai and others, 2017 (3) CTC (DB); 2017
(2) CWC 44 (DB); 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.
4.In the light of the above judgments, the impugned proceedings of the 2 nd
respondent which confirmed the earlier proceedings of the 3rd respondent and declared
the documents as fake documents, is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be
interfered by this Court and accordingly, the same is quashed. If at all, the private
respondents have any grievance, they have to workout their remedy before the
competent Civil Court in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the light of this
order, the entry that was entered in the Encumbrance Certificate pursuant to the order
passed by the District Registrar has to be canceled and this has to be done by the 4 th
respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.02.2025
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai Zone,
Chennai.
3.The Assistant Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
South Chennai,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
4.The Sub Registrar,
Velachery, Chennai 600 042.
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
