The decision underscores that judicial power cannot be delegated to administrative bodies and that substantial changes in the law impacting rights must be prospective, not retrospective.

COMMON ORDER

S.S.SUNDAR, J.,

W.P.No.9125 of 2023 :

All the above matters are either directed to be listed before us by orders of Reference or tagged as connected matters in view of common issues relating to the constitutional validity of Sections 77-A , 77-B and 22-B of Registration Act, as introduced by Registration [Tamil Nadu Second Amendment Act] 2021 [Act 91 of 2022] and its retrospective operation. In order to appreciate / understand the legal grounds raised and argued on either side and the reasons for reference by orders, we deem it necessary to give the outlines on facts in few individual cases which are as follows:

2.W.P.No.9125 of 2023 is filed for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the District Registrar from proceeding any further pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 14.02.2023, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the document vide Document No.69 of 2007 registered by the Sub-Registrar, Kumarapalayam, should not be cancelled in exercise of power under Section 77-A of the Registration Act.

3.The petitioner in W.P.No.9125 of 2023 purchased the property in respect of S.No.446/4 in Kumarapalayam Amani Village, Namakkal District, under a Sale Deed dated 11.01.2007. The petitioner raised a contention that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction to nullify the document which was registered long before Section 77-A of Registration Act was introduced.

4.While hearing the writ petition, our Brother, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S.RAMESH, after referring to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in E.Geetha Helan Alexandria and others v. the Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Dindigul and others [W.P.(MD) No.6947 of 2019, dated 02.01.2023] wherein Section 77-A as introduced to the Registration Act and the Circular thereafter are held to be prospective and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in E.Harinath v. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others [W.P.No.3804 of 2023, dated 09.02.2023] wherein a contrary view was taken that the District Registrar can invoke Section 77-A even in respect of the documents registered prior to amendment, opined that the question whether Section 77-A of will have a prospective or retrospective effect has to be settled by a larger Bench of this Court and hence, directed the above writ petition to be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for obtaining orders.

5.Identical issue was raised in W.P.Nos.10291 of 2022, 8445 & 8768 of 2023 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S.RAMESH passed similar orders in these matters by referring the matters to a larger Bench. Therefore, the said matters were also placed before the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, for consideration. The then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice directed the matters to be listed before this Bench.

6.Several petitions were also filed before the District Registrars concerned for cancellation of registered documents of conveyance. In all the cases, the District Registrars issued show cause notices to the parties concerned. Many individuals who have filed petitions/applications before the District Registrars for cancellation of instruments in exercise of powers under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, have filed writ petitions for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the District Registrars concerned to consider their representations regarding cancellation of registered documents. Similarly, persons who have received show cause notices have also filed writ petitions questioning the authority and jurisdiction of the District Registrars to hold enquiry under Section 77-A with reference to registered documents.

7.When a batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.14546 & 21199/2022 and WP.Nos.6556, 4983, 5396, 5397, 5413, 5418, 5419, 5449, 5492, 5497, 5613, 5782, 6215, 6288, 6333, 6433 and 6457/2023 falling under these two category of cases came up before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, after referring to the conflicting views expressed by this Court in a few judgments, regardin