ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings made in Na. Ka. No. 3475/B5/2022 dated 21.10.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and the impugned complaint dated 12.10.2022 lodged by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent against the petitioner, quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st Respondent from continuing proceedings on the basis of the complaint dated 12.10.2022 made by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner.

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 3475/B5/2022 dated 21.10.2022 and the complaint lodged by the 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent dated 12.10.2022 against the petitioner and consequently forbear the 1st Respondent from continuing proceedings against the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that an enquiry notice under Section 77-A of the Registration Act was issued by the 1st Respondent/District Registrar (Administration) to the Petitioner to appear before him for enquiry on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd Respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submitted that the very complainant is the brother of the Petitioner, his complaint indicates that he is not claiming any right over the property, but it is only questioned the manner in which the document is registered and with regard to showing the boundaries.

3. Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st Respondent. It is the submission of the learned Special Government pleader that according to the Respondent the boundaries specified in the document is not in order, besides the Petitioner also misrepresented as if there was a oral partition and registered the document. Based on the above complainant notice has been issued for cancelling the document.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that enquiry cannot be proceeded under Section 77-A of the Registration Act for these type of cases. Only documents contrarily registered under Section 27-A and Section 22-B of the Registration Act can be cancelled under Section 77-A of the Act.

5. Section 22 B of the Act deals with refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law, which reads as follows:

“Section 22-B. Refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register the following documents, namely:

(1) forged document.

(2) document relating to transaction, which is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force.

(3) document relating to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise, which is attached permanently or provisionally by a competent authority under any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force or any Court or Tribunal.

(4) any other document as the State Government may, by notification, specify.”

6. Thus, only the documents that fall within the ambit of forgery or any transaction which is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force or any property which has already been attached by a competent authority, the Registering officer shall refuse to register. When the sale has taken place those documents can be cancelled under Section 77-A of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Second Amendment) Act, 2021.

7. Therefore, merely because someone has executed the document believing that the property belongs to him that will not amount to forgery. It is relevant to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751. In paragraphs 14, 16 and 17 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:

1. The first is where a person dishones