ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent pertains to the impugned show cause notice dated 27.12.2022 bearing reference No.6859/Aa1/2022 and quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal.

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent, pertaining to the impugned show cause notice dated 27.12.2022 bearing reference No.6859/Aa1/2022 and quash the same as without jurisdiction and illegal.

2. That the second respondent had given a complaint on 07.12.2022 against the petitioner before the first respondent alleging that the Document Nos.120/2012, 121/2012, 1123/2014 and 9/2020 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sethiyarthope are fraudulent or forged documents. Therefore, in order to conduct an enquiry to that effect and to declare it as a forged one or bogus one and for the consequential relief to cancel those documents, he had filed the said complaint on 07.12.2022.

3. Having entertained the said complaint from the second respondent, the first respondent has issued summons to the petitioner on 27.12.2022, wherein, the first respondent has sought the following show cause from the petitioner:

OTHER LANGUAGE

Aggrieved over the said summons issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the same.

4. Heard Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, insofar as the documents in question are concerned, those documents are of the year 2012-20. Whereas, amendment to the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, referred to as “the Act”) has come into effect only with effect from 16.08.2022, under which, certain provisions like Section 77A of the Act has been inserted, which alone empower the District Registrars to act as a Quasi-Judicial Authority to enquire the complaint given in this regard by any aggrieved party against any document registered already, which ought not to have been registered within the meaning of Section 22A or 22B of the Act.

5. When that being so, any law, which has been made by the Legislature will have only prospective effect if it adversely affects the right of the parties and therefore, the present amendment inserting Section 77A of the Act would also have a prospective effect. That means, those documents, which had been already registered prior to 16.08.2022 shall not be brought under the purview of Section 77A of the Act. Therefore, on that ground, the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and issue the impugned summons.

6. In support to his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the year 1960 in [CDJ 1960 SC 348] in the matter on Moti Ram Vs Suraj Bhan & Ors., where, he has relied upon the following passage:

“8. That takes us to the other contention that the amended provision of S.13(3) (a)(iii) applies. There is no doubt that if this amended provision applied to the present case respondent 1 would not be entitled to obtain an order to ejectment. It is plain that by the amendment Legislature has imposed rigorous limitations on a landlord's right to recover possession in the case of any building or rented land. The question is whether this amendment can be said to be retrospective in operation. It is clear that the amendment made is not in relation to any procedure and cannot be characterised as procedural. It is in regard to a matter of substantive law since it affects the sub-stantive rights of the landlord. It may be conceded that the Act is intended to provide relief to the tenants and in that sense is a beneficial measure and as such its provision should be liberally construed; but this principle would not be material or even relevant in deciding the question as to whether the new provision is retrospective or not. It is well-settled that where an amendment affects vested