IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.12012 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.11862 of 2023 Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Trippur District.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Udumalaipettai, Trippur District.

3. Govindaraj ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent vide No. 7708/A1/2018 dated 31.3.2023 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatesh For Respondents :

(for R1 to R2) : Mr.C.Jaya Prakash, Govt. Advocate (for R3) : Mrs.M.Leena

O R D E R

The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the validity of the order passed by the first respondent in proceeding dated 31.03.2023. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property of lands more fully described in paragraph two of the affidavit filed in respect of the present writ petition.

2.The third respondent has approached the petitioner and offered to purchase the property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner states that the third respondent had induced him and his sister to sell the property. He was informed that the sale consideration would be paid after registration of the sale deed. Trusting the words of the third respondent, the petitioner and his sister agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the third respondent. The third respondent has received the original documents relating to the subject property for preparing the draft sale deed. The draft sale deed was prepared and presented by the third respondent before the second respondent Sub Registrar, Udumalaipettai. The second respondent Sub Registrar refused to register the document on the ground of non- appearance of the vendors for registration. Thereafter, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the District Registrar, Trippur, under Section

72(1) of the Registration Act and the District Registrar, without even issuing any summons or notice to the writ petitioner/ vendor, allowed the appeal by issuing a direction to the Sub Registrar to register the documents. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that under Section 35 of the Registration Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Registering Authority to verify the genuineness of the document presented and to identify the vendor for registration.

4.In the present case, the Registering Authority/ Sub Registrar rightly refused registration on the ground that the vendor / writ petitioner was not present. The first respondent District Registrar, without even ascertaining these facts and without issuing any notice to the petitioner / vendor, unilaterally allowed the appeal and directed the Sub Registrar to register the document. Thus, the order passed by the first respondent is in violation of Section 35(a) of the Registration Act and further in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The unilateral decision in the appeal is per se illegal and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

5.The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents one and two is unable to establish that the first respondent has given an opportunity to the writ petitioner to present his case. The learned counsel for the third respondent made a submission that the document was presented in accordance with the procedures contemplated. However, the third respondent could not deny that the vendor was present at the time of presentation and registration.

6.The Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Veena singh vs. District registrar/ additional collector reported in 2022 7 SCC 1, elaborately considered the meaning of “execution” wit