Writ petition challenging a Section 77-A Registration Act show cause notice seeking cancellation of documents alleged to be fraudulently sold and registered. The court held the allegations do not constitute forgery and set aside the notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.12037 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06..06..2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.12037 of 202
..... Petitioners
-Versus-
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5965/M6/2023 dated 27.09.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, and ultravires.
1 of 5
W.P.No.12037 of 2024
For Petitioner(s) : Ms.S.Yogalakshmi For Respondent (s) : Mr.P.Anandhakumar, Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated
27.09.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
given by one Rangarajan, the 3rd respondent alleging that 342.5 square feet of land belonged to him had been fraudulently sold and registered under Doc.No.148/1977, Doc.No.2329/2022 and Doc.No.2413/2022 and seeking cancellation of those fraudulent documents.
the complaint made by the 3rd respondent would not even constitute an offence of forgery. To cancel a document under section 77A of the Registration Act, the document should have been registered by impersonation or by committing forgery. When there is no offence of forgery, the question of entertaining the complaint by registering authority to cancel the documents under Section 77-A would not at all arise.
2 of 5
W.P.No.12037 of 2024
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned show cause
notice is set aside. No costs.
Index : yes / no 06..06..2024 Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order kmk
To
3 of 5
W.P.No.12037 of 2024
W.P.No.12037 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
W.P.No.12037 of 2024
06..06..2024 3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 77-A of the Registration Act alleging forgery in sale and registration of documents can be sustained when no offence of forgery arises.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of BiharRelied on¶6
(2009) 8 SCC 751 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr.V.Natarajan
Mr.Charath Chander
Mrs.N.Hamsaleela
Mrs.R.Kamala
The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem
The District Registrar (Admin), Namakkal
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
