Aggrieved individuals must seek remedy in civil court rather than through writ petitions when authority lacks jurisdiction.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The case of the first respondent herein is as follows:-

He purchased the petition mentioned property under a registered sale deed dated 25.03.2015. The appellants herein had purchased the very same property vide sale deed dated 12.06.2014 from Sri Karunya. Sri Karunya got the said property by way of settlement deed from her father Subramanian vide document dated 07.02.2014 (Document No. 390/2014). The first respondent herein Thiru.Indarchandlal represented to the District Registrar, Trichy for deleting the entries pertaining to the settlement deed dated 07.02.2014. Since it was not acted upon, the first respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)No.13668 of 2021. The learned single Judge vide order dated 06.08.2021 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Joint No.III Sub Registrar, Trichy, to consider the writ petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order thereon after putting respondents 3 to 6 on notice and providing all of them with a reasonable opportunity and then pass a speaking order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

3. The learned single Judge had passed the said order by placing reliance on an earlier order dated 17.06.2021 in W.P.No.10177 of 2021 in which it was held that the registration authorities are not powerless and when they come to know that fraudulent registrations have been effected, they could make an entry in the relevant register as well as in the encumbrance certificate once fraud is established.

4. We have to take note of the subsequent march of law. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in 2024 4 CTC 769 ( M.Kathirvelu Vs. IG of Registration ) had held that Section 77A of the Registration Act is unconstitutional. Therefore, the registering authority will not have any power as observed in the order dated 17.06.2021 in W.P.No.10177 of 2021.

5. Any aggrieved individual will have to necessarily go before the jurisdictional Civil Court. In this case, the first respondent herein had already approached the civil Court by filing O.S.No.658 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy. Therefore, the first respondent has to necessarily pursue his remedy only in the pending civil suit. In fact, invoking the writ jurisdiction was misconceived. A direction for considering one's representation can be given only if the authority concerned will have jurisdiction or power to pass an order on the representation. Once it is seen that the authority cannot grant the relief sought for in the representation, a direction to consider the representation is also futile.

6. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ appeal is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S., J.) (M.J.R., J.)

14.02.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi To

1.The District Registrar, District Registrar's Office, District Court Campus, Trichy-1, Trichy District.

2.The Joint No.3 Sub Registrar, Join No.3, Sub-Registrar's Office, District Court Campus, Trichy-1, Trichy District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

rmi W.A.(MD) No.1990 of 2021

14.02.2025