IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
B. Ramapriya - Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar (Administration), Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 10273 of 2025, W.M.P. No. 11573 of 2025
Decided On : 15-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court adds uidai as respondent considering the relevance to identity verification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of impersonation and use of fraudulent documents are established. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's ruling nullifies the fraudulent sale deed and reinstates legal ownership. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 25.03.2025, this Court passed the following order:
1. The Unique Identification Authority of India [UIDAI], Represented by its Chairman, Khanija Bhawan, No.49, III Floor, South Wing, Race Course Road, Bengaluru - 560 001, is suo motu added as seventh respondent in the writ petition.
2. Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the impleaded seventh respondent. Notice to respondents 4 to 6 returnable by 15.04.2025. Private notice is also permitted.
3. The specific ground that has been taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner was impersonated by one Ramapriya and she had executed a fraudulent sale deed bearing Document No.905 of 2024 in favour of the sixth respondent with respect to the subject property that belonged to the petitioner, by producing a fake Aadhaar card. Based on the same, the sixth respondent colluded with the fifth respondent and managed to add his name in the TSLR. The petitioner after coming to know of the same, filed a protest petition before the second respondent with a request not to entertain registration of any further document pertaining to the subject property. The petitioner also gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Avadi, against the sixth respondent and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.22/2025 for offences under Sec.120B, 419, 465, 468, 467, 471 & 420 IPC.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Aadhaar card that has been given to the petitioner carries the number 8467 7365 2010, and the fake Aadhaar card produced before the second respondent bears the number 5168 5513 9058.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded seventh respondent shall take written instructions with respect to the genuineness of the alleged fake Aadhaar card No.5168 5513 9058 that was produced before the second respondent.
6. Post this writ petition along with W.P.No.1062 of 2025 and W.P.No.8801 of 2025 under the caption 'for orders' on 15.04.2025. In the meantime, there shall be a direction to the second respondent not to entertain registration of any documents pertaining to the subject property until further orders are passed in this writ petition.
2. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the 6th respondent who is the purchaser of the property has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
2. I respectfully submit that I am a bona fide purchaser for valid consideration of the property comprised in Town Survey No. 67/32, measuring an extent of 2400 sq. ft, situated at Korattur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, under a Sale Deed dated 09.02.2024, registered as Document No. 905 of 2024 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Villivakkam.
3. I state that I purchased the said property believing the same to be genuine, lawful, and free from encumbrance, relying on the documents produced before the registering authority. At the time of execution, I had no reason to suspect any impersonation or forgery involved in the execution of the Sale Deed. I acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the impersonation, or any fraud committed by the executant.
4. I further submit that I am a victim of the impersonator who fraudulently posed as the true owner of the subject property. Upon learning of the complaint made by the Petitioner and the subsequent criminal investigation, I was shocked and distressed to discover that I had been deceived and defrauded by an unknown person who had falsely represented herself to be the la
The court found that a sale deed executed using a fake identity is illegal and declared it non est, emphasizing the importance of verified identity in property transactions under the Aadhaar Act.
Disclosure of identity information under the Aadhaar Act requires due process and a hearing, especially in cases involving fraud and impersonation, safeguarding individual privacy rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a court order, not inferior to that of a High Court Judge, for disclosure of Aadhaar information under Section 33 of the Aadhaa....
UIDAI cannot disclose biometric information without a valid court order, and identification requires live biometric data as per privacy and security frameworks established under the Aadhar Act.
Filing an FIR based on civil disputes without evidence of criminality is an abuse of process; mere misrepresentation for Aadhaar does not constitute an offence under the relevant legal provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.