Cancellation orders without notice to affected parties constitute a violation of natural justice, rendering such orders invalid.

O R D E R

Aggrieved by an order passed by 2nd respondent holding that Document No.3503/2013 registered on the file of 3rd respondent was a fraudulent document and liable to be cancelled, the petitioner has come by way of this writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, the property comprised in Survey Nos.8/1 Part, 8/2 Part, 7/2 Part and 7/1 Part of No.54, Sevilimedu Village, within the limits of Kanchipuram Municipality was sold by its original owner Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedapathy Jagatguru Sri Sankarachariar in favour of Kanchipuram Central Co-operative Bank's Employees Co- operative Building Society by registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.1970 after obtaining necessary permission from the Commissioner of HR and CE, Chennai. The said Society formed layout and sold the plots to various persons. One C.A.Rajagopal purchased Plot No.67 under Sale Deed dated 15.12.1972. Thereafter, he settled the property in favour of his son R.Krishnan vide Settlement Deed dated 06.06.2013. The Settlee-R.Krishnan obtained patta for the said property in Patta No.5428 in his name and his property was sub-divided as Survey No.7/1B29. The said R.Krishnan sold the property to petitioner's vendor namely A.T.Abdul Rahman under Sale Deed dated 08.01.2014. From above said A.T.Abdul Rahman, the petitioner purchased the property by Sale Deed dated 06.11.2014 registered as Document No.7128 of 2014 on the file of the 3rd respondent.

3. When the petitioner applied for Encumbrance Certificate of the property purchased by him on 31.12.2018, he found that based on the complaint made by 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent cancelled the Sale Deed in favour of petitioner's vendors vendor namely R.Krishnan by impugned order. It is the specific case of the petitioner before passing the impugned order cancelling the sale in favour of R.Krishnan, the petitioner was not issued with any notice.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that cancellation of petitioner's parent document would automatically result in invalidation of the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the 2nd respondent before passing the impugned order ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Though the 4th respondent was served and his name appeared in the cause-list, there is no representation for him.

6. The 3rd respondent filed his counter affidavit and resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry and found that Document No.3503/2013 was registered by impersonation. Therefore, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order giving his finding with regard to the fraudulent nature. However, it is stated by the 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit that the 2nd respondent has not made any order cancelling the registration of the Document No.3503/2013 as claimed by the petitioner.

7. Though in the impugned order there is no specific direction cancelling the document in question, there is a clear finding by the 2nd respondent the said document was registered by playing impersonation. In fact, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to take necessary criminal action against the persons involved in impersonation. It is also seen from the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the petitioner in the typed-set of papers, the Official Respondents made entries in the records regarding cancellation of Document No.3503/2013 and all other subsequent documents including the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner based on the impugned order.

8. Though there is no specific direction in the impugned order cancelling the document questioned before him, based on the adverse finding made by the 2nd respondent, the entries have already been made by the respondent in the registration record regarding the cancellation of the document. Before passing an order, which will have adverse impact on the petitioner, the 2nd respondent sho