O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a

Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 in Na.Ka.No.6448/Vu/2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.

2. As per the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, the case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property and he acquired title based on the settlement deed executed by his father by name Mr. M.Fareedhkhan under registered settlement deed dated 03.02.2022 an extent of 2.55 and ½ cent in Survey Nos. 7/8A, 7/10A and Survey Nos.

7/9A. The petitioner's father derived title from the release deed dated 30.12.2021. Based on the Settlement deed, the petitioner derived the title and executed Power of Attorney in favour of one B. Poonguzhali, the registered power deed dated 25.03.2022. Based on the Power of Attorney, the power agent of the petitioner executed sale deed in respect of the 2.11 cents and out of 2.55 ½ cents under registered sale deed dated 26.04.2022 in favour of one Mrs. Selvambal. Further, it is stated that one Mr.Nawabjan filed a complaint before the third respondent to cancel the above said release deed in favour his father. Subsequently, the Settlement deed was executed by father in favour of the petitioner and the Power of Attorney was said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of B. Poonguzhali and settlement deed was said to have been executed by the Power agent of the petitioner to Mrs. Selvambal, stating that the above document is alleged to be invalid.

3. Based on that complaint, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and passed order dated 05.12.2022. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent, without conducting any detailed enquiry, passed an order mechanically on 24.04.2023. The petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the second respondent, dated 24.04.2023. Impugned order left this petitioner to file present writ Petiton. Further, it is stated that the fifth respondent herein relied on a fabricated/created Document said to have been executed on 03.02.1981. Even, the said document does not find place in the schedule of the property under dispute. Based on the strength of the said document, he filed a complaints before the third respondent. For cancellation of the above said documents, he filed a complaint. The second and third respondents also, without locus-standi, invoked Section 77-A of the Registration Act and passed the impugned order. During the pendency of the appeal pending with the second respondent, the fourth respondent entertained Document No. 3821/2022 dated 19.12.2022, and Document No. 1454/2023 dated 19.12.2022, which are pending and executed to and in favour of one Kumar and it is said to have been executed by the fifth respondent. Since the matter has not attained finality, the above said documents have been executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the said Kumar has to be cancelled. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent.

4. One of the official respondents namely the third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that as per the Tamil Nadu e- Registration Rules, 2019 “ the users will be allowed to access the e- Registration module through the website of the Registration Department for creation of documents. On completion of data entry, the document so created will be displayed on the screen. Corrections (or) amendments can be made in the document if required at that stage. No corrections (or) amendments shall be possible after the document is taken up by the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned for processing.” Further, it is stated that the petitioner grandmother one Mrs. Hanifa Bee had executed release deed in favour of her brother Mr. Abdul Sukur, who is the father of the fifth respondent and another brother Mr.Abdul Wakab. The release deed did not contain