THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.33674 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.33130 of 2022 High Court directed IGR to issue guidelines to all DRO’s regarding implementation of amended Provisions of 77A of Registration Act as most of the DROs are following old one.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.12.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

1. W.P.No.33674 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.33130 of 2022

• Samraj
• Anuprakash            …   Petitioners

 

Vs

1.The Inspector General of Registration,    100, Santhome Road,    Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,   6/1, Red Fields, GRD Road,   Coimbatore – 641 018.

3.The District Registrar (Administration),    Office of Registration Department,    Coimbatore.

4.The Sub-Registrar,    Mettupalayam.

5.V.Srihari                         …  Respondents

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent by Proceedings No.10396/A1/2022 dated 10.11.2022 and the order of the 2^nd respondent by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5846/E2/2022 dated 05.12.2022 and quash the same.

For Petitioners          : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan

For Respondents       : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan

Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4

: Mr.G.Govarthanan, for R5

O R D E R The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent by Proceedings No.10396/A1/2022 dated

10.11.2022 and the order of the 2^nd respondent by proceedings in Na.Ka. No.5846/E2/2022 dated 05.12.2022 and quash the same.

2. The 5^th respondent has filed compliant-cum-representation before the 3^rd respondent in respect of certain documents having been registered by the concerned Registering Authority to cancel the same and take action against the petitioners by invoking Section 68(2) as well as 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
3. The said complaint-cum-representation given by the 5^th respondent having been heard was decided by the 3^rd respondent, vide his order dated 10.11.2022, where even though the 3^rd respondent found that the document in question is a fraudulent document, he expressed his inability to declare it as a fraudulent one and consequently give a direction to the Registering Authority to cancel the document, had directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to seek redressal of their grievances.
4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Registrar, appeal was filed before the 2^nd respondent i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Registration, as directed by the 3^rd respondent in the order dated 10.11.2022, by the petitioners.
5. The said appeal filed before the 2^nd respondent also was considered and the following order has been passed on 05.12.2022.

“bghUs; bjhlu;ghf ghh;it (2)y; fhQqk; nfhit khtl;lg;gjpthsupd; Miz kJP ghu;it (5)-y; fhQqk; nkyK;iwaPlL; kD bgwg;gl;Lss;J/ ghu;it(1)-y; fhQqk; g[fhu; kD kJP gjptr[;rl;lg;gpupt[ 68(2) kw;Wk; 77(A) Mfpa ,U gpuptpd; fPH; khtl;lg;gjpthsuhy;

Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Lss;J/ ghu;it(1)-y; fhQqk; kD

16/08/2022wF; gpwnf bgwg;gl;ljhy;. ghu;it(6)-y; fhQqk; murhizapd; goak[; kw;Wk; ghu;it(7)y; fhQqk;

Rw;wwpfi;fapd; goak[;. gjpt[rr;l;lg;gpupt[ 77(A)-d; fnPH khtl;lg;gjpthsu; tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L Miz gpwg;gpf;f ntzL;k;/ jtput[k; gjptr[rl;lg;gpupt[ 77(; A)-d; fPH; Mtzj;ij uj;J bra;a[khW 10/11/2022y; Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l gpd;g[ 22/11/2022-y; g[fhu; kD bjhlu;ghf vjpu;kDjhuupy; xUtuhd ePyfpup nfh-Mgn;uot; khu;f;bfo’; brhi!l;o epUthf ,af;Feuplk;. mtuJ jug;g[ tpsf;fk; 07/12/2022w;Fs; nfhug;gl;Lss;J/ ,it midjJ;k; Kdd;pw;F gpd; Kw;wpYk; Kuzhf css;J/ vdnt ,J bjhlu;ghd tpsf;fji;j mspfF;khW

khtl;lg;gjpthsu; (epUthfk;). nfhug;gLfpwhu;/ nkYk; ghu;it (7)y; fhQqk; gjpt[jJ;iwjj;iytu; Rw;wwpfi;fapd; go. 16/08/2022w;F gpwF bgwg;gLk; g[fhu; kDf;fs; kJP gjpt[rr;l;lg;gpupt[ 77(A)-d; fPH; Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl ntzL;k; vd;gjhy;. kDjhuiu Kjy; nkyK;iwaPlL; mjpfhupahd gjpt[jJ;iwj;jiytu; mtu;fsplk; nkyK;iwaLP bra;ak[hW mwpt[Wj;jp ghu;it(5)y; fhQqk; nkyK;iwaPl;L kD ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; Vw;f tHptifapy;iy vd;W

bjuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

6. Challenging these orders, the present writ petition has been moved.
7. Heard Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Mr.G.Govarthanan, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th
8. It is a known fact that, from 16.08.2022 Act 41 of 2022 i.e.

Amendment Act of Registration Act, 1908 has been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette from that date it has come into effect with the amended provisions viz., Sections 22-A, 22-B and 77-A of the Registration Act.

9. Under the said provisions, if any aggrieved party, against the fraudulent document, filed a complaint before the District Registrar, who is empowered under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, to enquire the matter and decide the same and ultimately if the District Registrar found that the document in question is a bogus one or fraudulent one, the registration made in this regard be directed to be cancelled by the Registering Authority, to that extent, the power is vested with the District Registrar under Section 77-A of the Act.
10. However, the 3^rd respondent being the District Registrar, before whom such an application/complaint had been filed, having conducted the enquiry, has found that the document in question is a fraudulent one. Instead of disposing the said appeal by making such a declaration and also a direction to the Registering Authority viz., the 4^th respondent to cancel the registration in respect of the document in question, he simply relegated the parties to go before the Civil Court to seek appropriate remedy, therefore, the said order is in conflict with the provisions of Section 77-A of the Act.
11. Be that as it may, as against the said order, as directed by the 3^rd respondent through the order dated 10.11.2022, when appeal was filed by the petitioners before the 2^nd respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Registration, he even though has held that the District Registrar has not properly decided the representation, has abdicated his duty and power which otherwise ought to have been exercised under Section 77-A of the Act. Nevertheless the 2^nd respondent has simply directed the petitioner to file appeal before the 1^st respondent i.e. Inspector General of Registration.
12. If the 3^rd respondent/District Registrar aware of the amendment from 16.08.2022 in the Registration Act under which Section 77-A has been brought in to be effected, he should have acted upon strictly under the said provisions. Otherwise if the 3^rd respondent doest not know or not aware of the said amendment, then it is a very serious issue against whom action through departmental proceedings has to be initiated.
13. Though in this regard the 2^nd respondent in his order dated

05.12.2022 has called for explanation from the 3^rd respondent, the very same 2^nd respondent has directed the parties to go before the 1^st respondent by way of appeal, instead the 2^nd respondent should have allowed the appeal by setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the 3^rd respondent or if the 3^rd respondent has not exercised his function properly within the meaning of Section 77-A of the Act, it could have been entrusted to any other District Registrar with the equal rank to exercise his power as a special case to be specially entrusted.

14. However the 2^nd respondent also has not properly dealt with the matter. Therefore, this Court feels that both orders i.e. order dated 10.11.2022

passed by the 3^rd respondent and order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent would not stand in the legal scrutiny as it goes against the very spirit of Section 77-A of the Registration Act, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that those orders are liable to be interfered with, accordingly the following orders are passed in this writ petition.

That the impugned orders dated 10.11.2022 and 05.12.2022 are hereby set aside. As a sequel, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up the matter and entrust the same to any District Registrar not to the present District Registrar at the 3^rd respondent Office with direction to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law by giving opportunity of being heard to both parties within a time frame of twelve (12) weeks from the date of such reference and on making such reference by the 1^st respondent/Inspector General of Registration, the concerned District Registrar to whom such reference is to be made shall act upon and decide the complaint of the 5^th respondent within the time frame to be stipulated as indicated above.

15. In general, this Court also feels that despite the amendment having been made which comes into effect from 16.08.2022 still some of the District Registrar Level Officers like the 3^rd respondent is not clear about their power and function as well as the responsibility especially under Section 77-A of the Registration Act. Therefore, in this regard a direction in general may be issued to all the District Registrar concerned who are expected to exercise their function under Section 77-A of the Act by way of mandatory guidelines for the effective implementation of the amended provisions. Such a circular shall be issued by the 1^st respondent/Inspector General of Registration at the earliest so that this kind of confusions and consequential litigations can be avoided.
16. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.12.2022

Index                 : Yes

Speaking Order :  Yes

Note : Issue order copy on 19.12.2022

Sgl

To

1.The Inspector General of Registration,    100, Santhome Road,    Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,   6/1, Red Fields, GRD Road,   Coimbatore – 641 018.

3.The District Registrar (Administration),    Office of Registration Department,    Coimbatore.

4.The Sub-Registrar,    Mettupalayam.

1. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.33674 of 2022

15.12.2022