The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registering Authority has no power to unilaterally cancel a settlement deed, and such unilateral cancellation is void and non-est in law.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondent to cancel the unilateral cancellation of settlement deeds in Document Nos.5657 and 5658 of 1992 dated 01.07.1992 on the file of the second respondent as illegal by removing the related entries in the Register maintained by the second respondent herein.)

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned cancellation of Settlement Deed Registered as Document No.248/2014 dated 25.04.2014 registered by the second respondent to quash the same as null and void consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the entries of cancellation of settlement deed vide Document No.248/2014 dated 25.02.2014 in the register.)

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the registration of the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed in Document No.6147/2004 dated 23.12.2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District, executed by the petitioner's husband comprised in plot No.18 with an extent of 2420 sq. ft situated at Kaaramadai village, Coimbatore District in Survey No.698/2, which was duly registered with the respondent vide document No.1142/1993 dated 29.03.1993 and quash the same as per as the property is concerned bearing document No.1142/1993 dated 29.03.1993 alone consequently directing the respondent to remove the said entry in the register and all the relevant records.)

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent culminating in the registration of the unilateral cancellation of settlement deed dated 10.07.2012 vide document No.2135 of 2012 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to make necessary entries in Book I on his file recording such quashing.)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The common legal issues that arises for consideration in these present Writ Petitions is as to whether the Registering Authority has powers to unilaterally cancel the Settlement Deed?

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such unilateral cancellation of the Settlement Deed is impermissible owing to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in 2010 (15) SCC 207 and Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2016 (10) SCC 767, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sasikala and Others Vs. The Revenue Division Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District and another reported in 2022 (7) MLJ 1, wherein it has been held that unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deed, is not permissible.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader made an attempt to distinguish the facts involved in Satya Pal Anand and Thota Ganga Laxmi's cases (supra) and submitted that prior to 29.11.2018, there was no circular, prohibiting such unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deed and therefore, the registration of the cancellation of the Settlement Deed, cannot be found fault with.

5. The issue pertaining to unilateral cancellation of a registered document is no more res integra. In Thota Ganga Laxmi, as well as Satya Pal Anand cases' (supra), this ratio has been well laid by holding that the Registering Authority has no power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the registered deed of conveyance which was already acted upon by the transferee and that, in the absence of any express provisions to the contrary in the Registration Act, 1908, the role of the Registering Authority