Administrative circulars cannot override statutory rights or court decrees; registering authorities must evaluate objections under Section 22-A of the Registration Act according to law, especially when a Civil Court has already adjudicated the title of the property.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.460/2023 dated 27.10.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.304 of 2013 passed by Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor within the time frame fixed by this Honble court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

ORDER

The writ petition is filed calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to register the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.304 of 2013 passed by Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.

2. Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondent.

3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed O.S. No. 304 of 2013 seeking a declaration that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the suit property and for consequential reliefs in respect of the said property. In the said suit, the Bhoodan Board, represented through the District Collector, was made as the defendant. After the decree was passed in favour of the petitioners, the same was presented before the registering authority for registration. However, the registering authority refused to register the said decree.

5. The impugned order states that registration has been refused based on the circular issued in this regard. The enclosed circular that is relied upon is dated 27.02.2023, wherein it generally stated that any Court Decree relating to HR & CE, Boothan Board, etc., shall not be registered.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such circular cannot override the rights of the petitioner to get the decree registered in accordance with law.

7. Per Contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that once the land is classified as land belonging to Boodhan Board, the standing instruction is that such a decree cannot be registered.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the material records of the case.

9. In this case, the respondents have not understood even the purport of the circular. The inclusion of such a clause in the circular is only with reference to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, under which the concerned authorities are entitled to raise objections regarding registration. Even where such an objection is raised, the registering authority is required to consider the same in accordance with law.

10. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner (HR & CE) in W.P.(No).30589 of 2012 and etc., has already held that such a request or a decision by itself would not be binding on the parties and Sub Register has to conduct an enquiry even the aggrieved party has to only