ORDER

The show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, issued by the District Registrar under section 77-A of the Registration Act is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that she purchased an extent of 7847 sq. ft.

land in T.S.No.1206 and an extent of 202 sq. ft. of land in T.S.No.1229/1, totally measuring an extent of 8049 sq. ft., together with building thereon, situated at Mayiladuthurai Registration District, Joint Sub Registrar – I, Mayiladuthurai. The petitioner purchased the said land through a sale deed dated 05.11.2008, registered as document No.2177/2008.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the show cause notice now issued by the District Registrar under Section 77-A of the Act is beyond his jurisdiction and therefore, the show cause notice is liable to be set aside. To substantiate the said ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the third respondent temple, if at all claiming any title, has to approach the Civil Court of law. Contrarily, the District Registrar cannot cancel the registered sale deed of the year 2008. It is further contended that Section 77-A of the Act cannot have retrospective effect, so as to cancel the document which is registered, prior to the amendment made with effect from 16.08.2022.

4. Defending the above grounds, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that no doubt, Section 77-A was inserted by T.N. Act 41 of 2022 with effect from 16.08.2022. However, in the present case, Section 77-A is to be read in consonance with the Section 22-A of the Act, since the third respondent temple is claiming right over the property. The prospective and retrospective application of Section 77-A is also to be interpreted in the context of other provisions of the Registration Act. The third respondent temple has already raised an objection for registering the property belonging to the temple. The subject property as per the revenue records belonged to the temple and therefore, in the present case, the temple property has been fraudulently alienated by the vendor to the petitioner in his favour.

5. The learned Government Advocate made a submission that the vendor of the petitioner was a tenant under the temple administration and in violation of the lease condition, he had fraudulently alienated the property in favour of the writ petitioner. Thus, the document itself is void as against the third respondent temple.

6. The amended provisions namely Sections 22-A, 22-B and 77-A are to be interpreted with reference to the object sought to be achieved under the Act.

7. Section 22-A was inserted by the T.N. Act 28/2012 dated

21.06.2012, with effect from 20.10.2016. Under Section 22-A, the Registering Authority is empowered to refuse to register certain documents, if there is an objection from the religious institutions and by the Government. Even in the absence of any such objections, if the Registering authority has knowledge about the property which is belonging to the religious institutions or the Government, he is empowered to refuse registration. At the outset, knowledge of the registering authority under Section 22-A would be sufficient to refuse registration in respect of Government properties and the properties belonging to the religious institutions.

8. An important question to be answered is, whether the document registered, prior to the insertion of Section 22-A , 22-B are liable to be cancelled by invoking the powers under Section 77-A of the Registration Act.

9. Before considering the issue in this regard, it is relevant to keep the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.Rajagopala Reddy Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan reported in 1995 (2) SCC 630. The three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the similar issue with reference to the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the relevant portions extracted as under:

“11. ...It is, however, true as held by the