Police cannot arbitrarily prohibit property registrations without prior legal authority or court orders, as per Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in C.No.154/DSP/EOWII/NKL/2018 dated 22.10.2018 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of this case are as follows:-

2.1. According to the petitioner, the properties measuring to an extent of 19.57 Acres were owned by one Late V.P. Pakchi Raja by virtue of the Sale Deeds dated 30.08.2010 (Doc.No.4612/2020), 25.10.2010 (Doc.No.4613/2010), 13.01.2011 (Doc.No.121/2011), 13.01.2011 (Doc.No.125/2011), 20.01.2011 (Doc.No.176/2011), 01.08.2011 (Doc.No.3113/2011) and 23.02.2011 (Doc.No.862/2011). He sold the entire properties to the petitioners vendors namely S.Balakrishnan and G.Rajarathinam under two Sale Deeds dated 23.04.2012 (Doc.Nos.1772 and 1773 of 2012).

2.2. The petitioners came to know the above properties, and thoroughly verified the marketable title, revenue records and encumbrance certificates in respect of the subject matter lands and purchased the entire extent of 19.57 Acres under the following four Sale Deeds, namely:-

i. Document No.1460 of 2018 in the name of the first petitioner. ii. Document No.1461 of 2018 in the name of the first petitioner.

iii. Document No.1462 of 2018 in the name of the second petitioner. iv. Document No.1463 of 2018 in the name of the second petitioner.

2.3. After the purchase, the petitioners have submitted an application dated 14.06.2018 for transfer of mutation entries in their names. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruchengode has considered the application of the petitioners and the report of the Village Administrative Officer, Tiruchengode, and passed two Patta Transfer Orders dated 13.07.2018 and 16.07.2018. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Tiruchengode had issued Patta in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners have been in actual and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said properties as its absolute owners. While so, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2013 on 19.11.2013 against one Jaisankar and his wife Jayalakshmi for the offence under Sections 406 , 420, 468 and 307 of IPC on the basis of the complaint given by Late V.P.Pakchi Raja alleging that the accused in Crime No.6 of 2013 had siphoned the sale price received from the said S.Balakrishnan and G.Rajarathinam. After investigation, the first respondent police filed police report in C.C.No.398 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram, Namakkal District against the 1^st accused Jaisankar and the 2^nd accused Jayalakshmi. The case was taken on file on 07.11.2014. During the course of trial, the witnesses were examined and the trial is at the fag end.

2.4. At this juncture, the first respondent has sent the impugned order dated 22.10.2018 to the second respondent/jurisdiction Sub Registrar by directing him not to entertain any documents for registration. In fact, such order has not been communicated to the petitioners. The entire analysis of the police report with reference to the ingredients of the penal provisions quoted above would clearly show that the subject matter properties purchased by the petitioners are no way related to the case in C.C.No.398 of 2014. Hence, challenging the order dated 22.10.2018 in C.No.154/DSP/EOWII/NKL/2018 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the first respondent is per se illegal and the first respondent is not authorized or empowered to pass the impugned order either under the Crim