Madras High Court
Esakki Muthuraja vs / on 20 January, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.31195 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.31195 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.26174 & 26175 of 2024
Esakki Muthuraja ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The District Registrar (Administration) (Incharge),
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Panagudi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.Veeraperumal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the first respondent by his proceedings dated
21.06.2023 in Na.Ka.No.3989/E5/2023 and quash the same.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.31195 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : No appearance
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the first respondent, dated 21.06.2023, thereby cancelled the
document which was under challenge under Section 77-A of the
Registration Act.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court. Though notice served on
the third respondent and his name also printed in the cause list, no
appeared either in person or through pleader.
3. The property comprised in Survey No.12/1 Perungudi
Village Part-II, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District to an extent of 2
acres 15 cents originally belonged to one Muthiah Thevar, Subramanian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thevar @ Ganaprakasa Thevar and Sankarapandia Thevar and they had
derive title over the subject property by the registered sale deed dated
27.05.1936 vide document No.736/1936 out of 4 acres 30 cents. The
remaining lands also belong to them by way of ancestral property.
Sankarapandia Thevar had executed the sale deed in respect of 1/3rd
share in favour of Muthaiah Thevar by the registered sale deed dated
16.12.1940 vide document No.2650/1940. After his demise his legal
heirs derive title over the property to an extent of 2 acres 86.5 cents.
Thereafter, the petitioner's mother executed the settlement deed in favour
of the petitioner to an extent of 2 acres 59.78 cents by the settlement deed
dated 23.08.2018 vide document No.2042/2018. Thereafter, the
petitioner was also issued patta in patta No.8354. While being so, the
third respondent submitted a representation to cancel the settlement deed
executed in favour of the petitioner under Section 77-A of the
Registration Act. On receipt of the same, the first respondent conducted
an enquiry and ordered to cancel the settlement deed executed in favour
of the petitioner. Now, the issue of power vested with the first respondent
under Section 77-A of the Registration Act has been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 unconstitutional and ultra vires and
accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court struck down the Section
77A of the Registration Act, 1908. 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, 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22570, 9386, 15825/2023:-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.”
5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
21.06.2023, passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained and it is
liable to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 021.06.2023, passed by the first respondent, is
hereby quashed. However, the third respondent is at liberty to approach
the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief in the manner known to
law, if he is so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes / No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO:-
1.The District Registrar (Administration) (Incharge),
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Panagudi,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
am
Order made in
Dated:
20.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
