The appropriate remedy at law for challenging the refusal of document registration is through an appeal, not a writ petition.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Writ order dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.1635 of 2021 is under challenge in the present intra-court appeal.

2. Writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The appellant presented a sale deed for registration. The Sub Registrar/registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that the subject lands were acquired by the Government and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/requisitioning body for developing neighbourhood scheme. Refusal was made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22A of the Registration Act since objections have been submitted by the competent authorities. The appellant/presentant of the document submitted his explanation and the registering authority had conducted an enquiry under Section 71 of the and passed a reasoned order vide proceedings dated 22.07.2016, which came to be challenged in the writ petition. A perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition would show that the subject lands had been acquired for public purpose by the Government and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for developing neighbourhood scheme. Said order indicates that an appeal is provided under Section 72 of the and such appeal may be filed within a period of 30 days. Instead of preferring an appeal under Section 72 of the , the appellant has preferred a writ petition challenging the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the registering authority.

3. There is no representation for the appellant.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the subject lands had not been acquired by the Government in the year 1967. There are discrepancies regarding the extent of lands acquired and the registering authority has not considered the explanation submitted by the appellant in this regard. That apart, limitation in the present case would not apply since the lands belong to the appellant had not been acquired by the Government.

5. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General would oppose by stating that the subject lands had been included in the land acquisition proceedings. Acquisition proceedings was completed in all respects in the year 1967 and the acquired lands were handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and possession was taken. Thus the lands vest with the Government absolutely and presently vest with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The documents would show that the subject lands have been included in the land acquisition proceedings and award proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is incorrect. The writ Court has verified the documents and found that the appellant is not entitled for any relief and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

6. On the one hand, the appellant would contend that the extent of the lands mentioned in the land acquisition proceedings is incorrect. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the proposed lands have been already acquired and the acquisition proceedings and the award proceedings would indicate that the subject lands have been acquired by the Government in the year 1967. This Court is of the considered view that said disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by the writ Court in writ proceedings which require scrutinisation of original documents including the land acquisition proceedings of the year 1967 in entirety. High court cannot conduct a roving enquiry. In the present case, the registering authority verified certain documents and accepted the petitions given by the authorities and refused registration by passing a reasoned order under Secti