ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the impugned communication of the third respondent, dated 05.02.2021, wherein, the representation made by the petitioner seeking for cancellation of an entry made in the Encumbrance Certificate was rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the subject property, by virtue of a registered partition deed, dated 22.02.1980. The further case of the petitioner is that a fraudulent document came to be executed in favour of the fifth respondent by impersonation based on a forged patta. The document was registered on the file of the fourth respondent. This registration is said to have taken place even without verifying the parent documents.

3. Immediately after the registration of the document, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner made an application to the third respondent to take action and to declare the transaction as a fraudulent transaction. The third respondent, passed an order on 26.03.2018, by directing the petitioner to approach the concerned Civil Court, seeking for cancellation of the document. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent passed an order on 30.04.2019, declaring that the document executed in favour of the fifth respondent is a fraudulent document.

4. On a careful reading of the order passed by the second respondent dated 30.04.2019, it is found that the second respondent, on a detailed analysis has held that the registration was based on a forged patta and the entire transaction was a fraudulent one. The second respondent, in spite of rendering such a finding, refused to cancel / recall the registration on the ground that there is no such power vested with the Registration Department and the same has been made clear through a Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, dated 31.07.2018.

5. The petitioner, thereafter, was expecting the order passed by the second respondent to be reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, which will effectively reverse the earlier fraudulent transaction. However, the earlier entry made at the time when the fraudulent transaction had taken place continued in the Encumbrance Certificate and therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent on 04.01.2021, seeking for removal of the entry.

6. The third respondent, by virtue of the impugned communication, dated 05.02.2021, informed the petitioner that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by virtue of a Circular of the Inspector General of Registration. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the second respondent, dated 30.04.2019, has become final and the same has not been put to challenge by the fifth respondent. The learned counsel by bringing to the notice of this Court the Judgment passed in the case of J.Jayaniithaa Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others reported in [2021 (1) CTC 839], submitted that where a transaction has been held to be fraudulent, a party should not be driven to a Civil Court to cancel the document and proper entry has to be made in the Encumbrance Certificate reversing the earlier entry that was made place at the time when the fraudulent transaction was registered.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Civil) appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that the petitioner was insisting for the cancellation of the earlier sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent and such request made by the petitioner is un-sustainable since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Registration Department does not have the power to cancel any document and the same has been followed up by the Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration informing all the concerned Sub Registrars that such cance