Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Sundeep Devarajan – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, Administration, Chengalpattu & Another – Respondents
W.P.No. 19815 of 2023 & W.M.P.No. 19138 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Registration Act - Property Dispute - Section 22(A), Section 72, Section 77 - The court discussed the provisions of the Registration Act, particularly Section 22(A) which allows refusal to register documents belonging to religious institutions, Section 72 which provides for appeal to the registrar from the orders of sub-registrar refusing registration, and Section 77 which allows for instituting a civil suit in case of refusal by the registrar. The court emphasized the limited powers of the registering authority and the appellate authority under the Registration Act, and the legislative intention to relegate parties to the appellate authorities for effective adjudication of disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to purchase a property but faced objections from a religious institution, leading to refusal of registration by the registering authority. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, contending that the documents and civil court decree were not considered by the first respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not exhausted the remedy contemplated under Section 77 of the Registration Act, and emphasized the limited powers of the registering authority and the appellate authority. It held that the nature of writ proceedings is incomparable with the suit proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of registration by the registering authority, the petitioner's failure to exhaust the remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act, and the limited powers of the registering authority and the appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legislative intention to relegate parties to the appellate authorities for effective adjudication of disputes, the incomparability of writ proceedings with suit proceedings, and the inability of writ proceedings to adjudicate disputed facts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner must exhaust the remedy contemplated under Section 77 of the Registration Act by approaching the Civil Court for effective adjudication of the disputed issues between the parties.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the Impugned Order No. 1525 / B1 / 2022 dated 09.02.2023 made by the 1st respondent herein and further direct the 1st respondent herein to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner herein along with the additional statements made by the petitioner dated 20.05.2022, 15.06.2022 and 22.12.2022 along with supporting documents and the orders of this Hon''ble Court dated 23.01.2023 made in W.P.No. 1463 of 2023.)
The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order passed by the first respondent in proceeding dated 09.06.2023 and to direct the first respondent to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner along with the additional statements made by the petitioner on 20.05.2022, 15.06.2022 and 22.1.2022, along with the supporting documents and the orders of this Court dated 23.01.2023, made in W.P. No.1463 of 2023.
2. The petitioner states that he has proposed to purchase the property and presented the document of the property more fully described in the present writ petition. The petitioner presented sale deeds for registration before the sub registrar Tiruppur. The registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that there was an objection from the second respondent religious institutions within the meaning of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Since the petitioner was not convinced with the reasons stated in the objections filed by the second respondent, he attempted to clarify that the land belonging to the second respondent is no way connected with the land belonging to the petitioner and submitted his statement and other documents. The registering authority reiterated his refusal and thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 72 of the Registration Act.
3. The first respondent adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents placed before the authority. The first respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that there is a dispute existing between the petitioner and the second respondent religious institution and therefore, the document presented by the petitioner cannot be registered.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the first respondent has failed to consider all the documents including the statements given by the petitioner. A Civil Court Decree passed in favour of the petitioner also has been produced before the first respondent for consideration, but the first respondent failed to consider any of these document and formed an opinion that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent and thus, the order impugned is to be set aside.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated that the decree passed in O.S.No.107 of 1994 dated 31.03.1999 is unambiguous and the specific demarcation made in the decree would be sufficient to consider the case of the petitioner for registration. In view of the fact that the first respondent failed to consider any of these documents and statements produced by the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court with reference to the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 95 wherein the maintainability and entertainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court has been distinguished in Para 4 which is extracted as under :
“4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the high courts holdin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited powers of the registering authority and the appellate authority under the Registration Act, and the legislative intention to relegate p....
A pending civil suit does not bar the registration of a Settlement Deed if no established conflicting title is presented by the opposing party.
Section 22-A objections require notice, enquiry, and reasoned order by registering authority before withholding deed.
When a religious institution objects to the registration of a document under S.22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority must hold a summary inquiry, issue notice to all parties, and af....
Registering authority must conduct enquiry before refusing document under Section 22-A on religious institution objection.
The registering authority must conduct a summary inquiry and provide an opportunity for hearing instead of summarily refusing to register a document based on objections from a religious institution.
The court confirms the procedural requirements for document registration pertaining to disputed lands involving a religious institution, following established case law.
Registering authority must conduct enquiry before refusing document under Section 22-A on religious institution objections.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
