The powers of District Registrars to cancel documents under Section 77A are unconstitutional without proof of fraud or impersonation, requiring disputes to be resolved in civil courts.

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P(MD).No.12184 of 2024 and WMP(MD).No.10810 of 2024 Mekinisa Rose .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Audit, Pudukkottai Registration District, Pudukkottai.

2.S.Vincent Raj ... Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.

147/Thu.Tha/2022, dated 12.09.2022.

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Mahaboob Athiff.M Advocate For R1 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For R2 : -No Appearance-

ORDER

Notice is served on respondent No.2 but no one appeared for the respondent No.2, either in person or through counsel.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the order issued by the

1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/Thu.Tha/2022 dated 12.09.2022, thereby, cancelling the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner registered vide document No.2355 of 2013, in respect of the property comprised in S.No.162/4, situated at Sammati Viduthi Revenue Village, Pudukkottai Taluk and District, to the extent of 13 cents.

3. The property was purchased by the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband had purchased property for valid sale consideration from one Mr.Venkatachalam. The petitioner's husband-vendor also issued patta for the said property in patta No.842. The respondent No.2, filed an application before the respondent No.1 to cancel the sale deed which was executed in favour of the petitioner's husband, under Section 77 (A) of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908), is declared as unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Kathirvel and Ors Vs. The Inspector Genral of Registration and Ors. reported in { [2024] (4) CTC 769]. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:-

“164.A few counsels appearing for the petitioners, particularly, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior counsel referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20.03.2024 in WA.No.3391 of 2023 [ Netvantage Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Rep.by its Authorised Signatory Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others]. The appellant in the writ appeal purchased a property by a Sale Deed dated 28.09.2007 from a person who claimed title by virtue of an earlier Sale Deed in 2004. The respondents 4 to 7 who claimed title to the property, filed an application before the District Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act to cancel the two Sale Deeds in the year 2004 and 2007 on the ground that they are fraudulent. The District Registrar cancelled the Sale Deeds as fraudulent. The order of District Registrar was confirmed by Inspector General of Registration. The writ petition filed by the purchaser under 2007 document, was dismissed on the ground that parties have to approach the Civil Court for resolving the dispute. While allowing the appeal, the Division Bench held that S.77A of Registration Act cannot have retrospective effect and that powers given under Section 77A of Registration Act to District Registrars is limited and cannot be exercised for cancellation of document unless there is proof to establish fraud or impersonation. The Division Bench held as follows:-

''15.Therefore, necessarily, the Court has to form an opinion that in respect of the documents falling under Section 22-B of the Act, if sought to be cancelled, then the Registrar is empowered to cancel the documents under Section 77-A of the Act. In respect of other documents registered prior to the amendment, one has to understand that those documents are to be dealt in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of registration by approaching the Civil Court of law. When all those documents registered prior to the amen