IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.23119 of 2022 Ameenur Rahman ...Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, The Office of the Sub Registrar, Pernampattu, Vellore District. ...Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the refusal check slip dated 17.08.2022 in refusal number: RFL/Peranpattu/8/2022 issued by the respondent and quash the same a illegal and improper and consequently direct the respondent to register the lease deed dated 15.08.2022 presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting for the production of the original parent document within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vijaya Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the refusal check slip dated 17.08.2022 in refusal number: RFL/Peranpattu/8/2022 issued by the respondent and quash the same a illegal and improper and consequently direct the respondent to register the lease deed dated 15.08.2022 presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting for the production of the original parent document within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent takes notice for the official respondent. In view of the limited relief sought for in this petition and on the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.No.400/1B1, to an extent of 2.83.5 Hec and 7.00 acres Atpernampattu, Vellore District. The petitioner intended to lease his property to the third parties and presented the lease document before the respondent. However, the same was returned in Refusal No.RFL/Peranpattu/8/2022, dated 17.08.2022, on the ground that the original document was not produced. Hence, this writ petition is filed with the above said prayer.

4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner annexed the certified copy of the parent document, even then the respondent refused to register the document is not sustainable, the issue involved in the present case, is no more res-integra. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021. The relevant portion of the above said order is extracted hereunder:-

"8.This Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The latest decision of the learned Single Judge appears to have not considered the implication of the Circular with reference to the scheme of the relevant Act. On the other hand, the above three decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner would certainly hold the field and in which event, insistence on production of original Title Deeds by the Registering Authority is without any authority of law. The Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in this regard cannot have any sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such Circular is authorized under the provisions of the Act. This Court has consistently held that no such power can be read into Act, in the absence of any specific provisions and in that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the subject issue is no more res- integra. As far as the latest decision of the learned Single Judge is concerned, being a kind of a contra view, this Court is of the opinion that the order passsed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16768 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020 has not appreciated the provisions of the Act, as the reasons of the learned Si