IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the powers of the District Registrar and the need for adjudication of civil disputes by the Competent Civil Court of Law.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2023 passed in WP No.20423 of 2023.

2. The writ petitioner-Company is the appellant before us.

3. The appellant purchased the subject property in Survey Nos.215/1B, 216/1C, 216/2B, 217/2 and 227/2 vide document No.4078 of 2007 dated 28.09.2007. The vendor to the appellant purchased the said property on 21.12.2004. The respondents 4 to 7 claiming title over the subject property submitted an application before the District Registrar-third respondent, seeking cancellation of the documents registered in favour of the vendor to the appellant in the year 2004 and the appellant in the year 2007. The District Registrar conducted summary proceedings and cancelled the said two Sale Deeds as fraudulent. An appeal under Section 77-B of the Registration Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short], was filed before the first respondent-Inspector General of Registration, who in turn, confirmed the order passed by the District Registrar. Thus the appellant instituted the writ proceedings, challenging the order passed by the District Registrar under Section 77-A and the appellate order passed under Section 77-B of the Act.

4. The Writ Court formed an opinion that the title dispute exist between the appellant and the respondents 4 to 7 and therefore, the parties have to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of resolving the issues. Since the writ petition was disposed of, without granting the relief to the appellant-Company, they have chosen to file the present writ appeal.

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that power to cancel the Sale Deed had not been conferred to the District Registrar during the relevant point of time. Thus the application entertained for cancellation of Sale Deed, per se, is without jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority and the Writ Court have not considered the jurisdictional point raised by the appellant and therefore, the present writ appeal is to be considered.

6. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant by stating that the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration was in force still 08.11.2017. Further an enquiry was conducted by the District Registrar by affording opportunity. That apart, the validity of the Circular had been upheld by the Writ Court. For all these reasons, the writ order is to be confirmed.

7. Perusal of Section 68 of the Act, reveals that Power of Registrar to superintend and control the Sub-Registrars are conferred. The very Chapter itself stipulates that controlling powers of the Registrars and Inspector General. Sub Section (2) to Section 68 enumerates that "every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act, which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered".

8. Section 68(2) of the Act, must be read along with Sections 32 to 35 of the Act, wherein the procedures are contemplated for registration. Therefore, the scope of Section 68(2) of the Act, cannot be expanded for the purpose of cancellation of Sale Deed by conducting summary enquiry. If such powers are exercised, then the District Registrars are usurping the powers of the Civil Court of Law, which is impermissible. To cancel the Sale Deed, the trial nature proceedings are warranted. Such an exercise cannot be made by the Registering Authority or the District Registrar under the Registration Act. Therefore, Section 68(2) of the Act, must be purposively interpreted, so as to form an opinion that the errors, omissions or violations during the course of regist