Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22799
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
Perumal – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Reg – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.28893 of 2022
Mr.P.Ponraj, Mr.P.Subbaraj, Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
The Registrar cannot cancel registered documents without explicit statutory authority, as their role is administrative, not quasi-judicial.
Headnote:
Registration - Writ Petition - Registration Act, 1908 Sections 68, 22-A, 22-B, 77-A - The court held that the Registrar lacks the authority to cancel registered documents without explicit statutory power, emphasizing the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions in registration matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that properties were sold through impersonation and fraud, seeking an inquiry into the matter after the authorities failed to act on his complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registering Authority does not have the power to cancel registrations based on allegations of fraud or impersonation, as established by precedent and statutory interpretation.
Issues: Whether the Registering Authority has the power to cancel registered documents based on allegations of fraud or impersonation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Registrar's powers are administrative and do not extend to canceling registrations without explicit statutory authority.
Final Decision: Writ Petition dismissed; petitioner must seek remedy in civil court.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to
3 to conduct the enquiry and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2022, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3.It is the case of the writ petitioner that the properties in question are the properties of the petitioner's father. However, the said lands were sold by impersonation and fraud. Hence, the petitioner made a complaint before the respondents 1 to 3 to enquire about the said impersonation and fraud. Since the same was not acted upon, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Registering Authority has no power to go into all these transactions. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of the document already registered. Sections 22-A and 22-B were inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2022 respectively to prevent registration of certain category of the documents. Thereafter, Section 77-A has been brought by Act 41 of 2022 to cancel the document registered in contravention of Sections 22-A and 22-B not beyond it. Now Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 also is struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch as unconditional. Such being the position, this Court is of the definite view that the title cannot be decided by the Registering Authorities. These facts have been discussed by this Court in W.P.No.29706 of 2022 [G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others] and the Order in the writ petition is as follows:
“... 3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The execution of documents and its validity, the right created or extinguished is governed by the substantive law namely the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 relates to the factum of registration alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata , (2005) 12 SCC 77 has held as follows:
“The Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions. The whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions embodied therein. Thereby only the notice of the public is drawn.”
4. The practice has been developed in the recent past in Tamil Nadu to entertain the applications given by the so-called affected parties to cancel all the documents under the pretext of either forgery or fradulent transactions. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu has brought out Circular No.67 dated 03.11.20211 to deal with the fraudulent registrations through impersonation. The said circular is mainly based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of YanalaMalleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma, reported in AIR 2007 AP 57. However, the three bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that the power of the Registrar, under the Registration Act, is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. The same is extracted hereunder: “34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787] ). Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interli
