Madras High Court
K.Chinnaiah vs The District Collector on 13 September, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023
K.Chinnaiah ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Office of District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Devakottai Taluk,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
3.P.Manickam
4.T.Saravanan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first
respondent to direct the second respondent not to issue patta in respect of
property in Survey No.18/1C, Patta No.724 and extent of 88 ¾ cents and
survey No.18/1G1 patta No.1316 an extent of 29 ¾ cents in
Thennervayal Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023
bogus Registered Sale Deed Document No.3539/2023 dated 01.08.2023
executed by the third respondent in favour of the fourth respondent by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.09.2023.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R1 & R2 :Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner Chinnaiah, S/o.Late.Kalimuthu said to have purchased the properties in Survey No.18/1C to an extent of 88 ¾ cents in Theneervayal Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District from one Subbaiah Ambalam through a registered sale deed dated 01.03.2004 as Document No.371/2004. He also purchased the another property in Survey No.18/1G1 to an extent of 29 ¾ cents adjacent to that land on 24.10.2020.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the patta for both these lands stands in the name of the petitioners as patta Nos.724 and 1316. While so, the respondents 3 & 4 have created some bogus documents with regard to the property and registered the same on 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 01.08.2023 as document No.3539 of 2023. The petitioner claims that he is taking necessary steps to cancel the document registered on 01.08.2023. in the meantime, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents 3 & 4 are trying to transfer the patta in their names.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on instructions submitted that the patta still stands in the name of the petitioner and they have not received any application so far from the respondents 3 & 4 for transferring the patta and therefore, the apprehension is unwarranted.
4. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
5. Patta still stands in the name of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., [(2016) 10 SCC 767] has held that that the power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter and in the absence of any express provision on that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Registering Officer would be competent to cancel the registration of the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 documents in question. Therefore, for cancellation of registered documents, the State of Tamil Nadu brought an amendment to the Registration Act, vide the Registration (Tamil Nadu Second Amendment) Act, 2021. By this amendment Act, Sections 22B, 77A, 77B, 81A and 81B were inserted in the Registration Act. Section 77A provides the power to the Registrar to cancel registered documents, if it is found to be in contravention of sections 22A and 22B.
6.Whereas, this Court in S.M. Hajabakrutheen Vs. The Inspector General of Registration [W.P.(MD) Nos. 14546 of 2022 batch, dated 27.03.2023], in view of the conflicting views taken by two different benches of this Court regarding the applicability of Section 77A, has referred various issues for consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the reference order is extracted as follows-
“20. In view of the reasonings of the Full Bench and in view of the conflicting views of the two learned Single 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 Judges the following issues are referred for due consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court.
i) whether the recitals in a document presented for registration, can be examined to determine that such document was fraudulently executed or registered;
ii) whether a document in which the recitals alone are questioned can be considered only as voidable which would normally necessitate the filing of the suit to set aside the particular document or whether even those documents can be cancelled by the Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act;
iii) whether exercise of power under Section 77A must be restricted to registration of documents in contravention to Section 22-A or 22-B of Registration Act, 1908 alone?
iv) whether the exercise of such power under Section 77A of the Registration Act can be prospective in nature or retrospective in nature?
21. To determine these issues, the Registry may place all the writ petitions before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for constitution of a Larger Bench to examine the 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 issues in detail.
22. Till a decision is rendered by the Larger Bench, let no further action be taken by any of the Sub Registrars, who may await further orders of the Larger Bench.”
7.By referring to the above order, this Court in A.Shanthi v. The District Registrar [WP.No.18814 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023] has reiterated that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any action on an application under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till the reference is answered by the Larger Bench. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:-
“4.In the light of the above order, there is no scope for considering the representation made by the petitioner at present and the petitioner has to necessarily await for the final orders to be passed by the Larger Bench on the issue. Hence, this writ petition is closed for the present.
5.It is brought to the notice of this Court that in spite of the above order passed by this Court, the District Registrars are entertaining the applications under Section 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 77A of the Registration Act and even orders are passed. It is not known as to whether this order was circulated to all the District Registrars in State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the above order, this Court once again reiterates that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any further action on the application submitted under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till a final decision is rendered by the Larger Bench. The Inspector General of Registration is directed to issue a Circular in this regard to all the District Registrars across the State of Tamil Nadu immediately”
8.In view of the above decisions, this Court disposes of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court and if any civil suit is filed, the same shall be entertained by the civil Court by excluding the period for which this writ petition was pending before this Court for the purpose of calculating the limitation period. The writ petitioner is also at liberty to invoke Section 77A of the Act upon the outcome of the reference made. There shall be no order as to costs.7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. 13.09.2023 Internet:Yes am To
1.The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Tahsildar, Devakottai Taluk, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
am Order made in W.P(MD)No.22383 of 2023 13.09.2023 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis