Allowed

Rajesh Dhariwal v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC23 Sept 2024WP/14268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged an order cancelling a registered document under Section 77A of the Registration Act. Relying on a Division Bench judgment that struck down Section 77A as unconstitutional, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the removal of encumbrance entries, allowing private respondents to pursue remedies in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; entry in encumbrance certificate to be removed.

Rajesh Dhariwal Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

¶7

and WMP.Nos.15485 and 15486 of 2024

Rajesh Dhariwal

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶12

2.The Deputy General of Registration, No.10, Kanchipuram High Road, Chengalpattu Bazaar, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶13

3.The District Registrar, No.10, Kanchipuram High Road, Chengalpattu Bazaar, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶14

4.The Sub Registrar, No.10, Kanchipuram High Road, Chengalpattu Bazaar, Chengalpattu – 603 002. 5.K.Manohar @ Manoharan 6.L.Venkatesan @ L.K.Venkat

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent in order dated 06.12.2021 in Na.Ka.No.3965/AA3/2020 and confirmed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.150/AA1/2022, dated 25.09.2023.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Harinath

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Elankumar for R5 Unserved - R6

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondents 2 and 3 cancelling the registered document under Section 77A of

¶24

Registration Act at the instance of 5 th respondent.

¶25

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned

¶26

counsel for contesting 5 th respondent.

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

¶30

3. This Court in M .Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration reported in MANU/TN/4032/2024 , struck down Section 77A of Registration Act, the consequence of the same on the orders passed by the District Registrar in exercise of power under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 was also spelled out by the Division Bench in the following words:

¶31

The above writ petitions are filed challenging

¶32

the orders passed by the District Registrar cancelling the document on the ground that the registration of the document are in contravention of Section 22-A and Section 22-B. In view of the decision taken by this Court by declaring Section 77-A is unconstitutional, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the respective District Registrars by invoking the power under Section 77 are set aside.

¶33

4. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the above mentioned case, as a necessary consequence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3965/AA3/2020 dated 06.12.2021 confirmed by 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.150/AA1/2022, dated 25.09.2023 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Any

¶34

3/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

¶37

entry made in the encumbrance certificate pursuant to the impugned order shall be removed by the respondents.

¶38

5. It is open to the private respondents to workout their remedy

¶39

in the manner known to law before the Civil Court. The private respondents

¶40

are entitled to exclude the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings under Section 77A of Registration Act and writ petition before this Court, while calculating limitation for filing Civil suit. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶41

23.09.2024

¶42

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ub

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

2.The Deputy General of Registration, No.10, Kanchipuram High Road, Chengalpattu Bazaar, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶49

3.The District Registrar, No.10, Kanchipuram High Road, Chengalpattu Bazaar, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶50

4.The Sub Registrar, No.10, Kanchipuram High Road, Chengalpattu Bazaar, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶51

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶52

5/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

W.P.No.14268 of 2024

23.09.2024

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rajesh Dhariwal v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Dhariwal v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Nagarajan Vs Inspector General of Registration

Mr.a.Muruganantham Vs the District Registrar

D.Vinodhini Vs the Zonal Deputy Thasildar

Gomathi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.Vijayakumar Vs the District Registrar

R.Prabhakaran Vs The District Registrar (Admin)