The need for valid provisions under the law to refuse registration of documents.

1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.03.2009, in and by which the fourth respondent directed the sixth respondent, not to register any document in respect of the land in question.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a landed property having an extent of 2400 square feet in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, due to financial constraints, the petitioner wants to sell the property and when he presented the document before the sixth respondent, for sale, he came to know that the document in respect of Old Survey No.65/32, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, could not be registered on account of the impugned proceedings. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings dated 25.03.2009, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. It is stated by the sixth respondent that the first respondent requested the third respondent to direct the fourth respondent herein to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009 and to inform the same to the Registration Department and hence, the order regarding withdrawal of the said memo is awaited by the sixth respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner's property is also coming under the said Survey Nos.65/1 and 65/2. Hence, the sixth respondent is awaiting further instructions from the Revenue Department in this regard. Hence, the sixth respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent, by proceedings dated 10.04.2012, has already requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the impugned memo dated 25.03.2009 and to inform the same to the Registration Department. Despite the said order, till today, the fourth respondent has not taken any steps to withdraw the impugned memo, because of which, the sixth respondent refused to entertain the document presented for registration. Hence, the learned counsel wants to set aside the said memo.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkaddu Grama Vivasayigal Sangam v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & 3 others [2008(3) LW 766], wherein at paragraph No.14, it has been held as follows:

"14. That apart, there is no other provision under which the State Government or the respondents herein can validly issue any directions refusing to register any document for which registration is permissible under the provisions of the said Act. If that be so, it is shocking to note as to under what provision of law or any other authority, the second respondent issued such directions directing the third respondent not to register any sale deed in the villages of Thiyagavalli and Kudikkadu except in favour of "M/s. Cuddalore Power Company Ltd." Any such directions issued by the second respondent and the impugned proceedings of the third respondent based on such a directive of the second respondent clearly infringes the constitutional right of any land owner as a citizen of this country. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings are wholly devoid of merits and are liable to be set aside."

6. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. On a misconception that the Survey Nos.65/1 and 65/2 are related to Government properties, the fourth respondent, by memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein, directed the Sub-Registrar, not to register the documents presented for registration. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, by letter dated 10.04.2012, requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein and inform the same to the Registration Depa