Dismissed

S.Iqbal v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC29 Oct 2024WP/26467/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of documents by the registering authority under Section 77A of the Registration Act. Relying on a Division Bench judgment that struck down Section 77A, the Court held that no inquiry could proceed and the petition was disposed of, directing the civil court for the remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The second respondent cannot proceed with the enquiry. The fourth respondent is entitled to exclude time taken under Section 77A for limitation in a Civil suit.

S.Iqbal Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.26467 of 2023

¶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.26467 of 2023

¶7

and WMP.Nos.25873 and 25874 of 2023

S.Iqbal

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome,

¶12

Chennai – 28.

¶13

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Chennai Central Registration District, Chennai – 600 014.

¶14

3.K.Vanisri

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records of the 1^st respondent in No.36136/U1/2022 dated 05.05.2023 confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.10786/B2/2022 dated 26.09.2022 and quash the same as wholly without jurisdiction, without any lawful authority and beyond the scope of newly inserted Section 22B(1) and Section 77A of the

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.26467 of 2023

¶20

Registration Act, 1908 under Tamil Nadu Act, 41 of 2022, which came into force with effect from 16.08.2022.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel Senior Counsel For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader for R1and R2 M/s.S.Janarthanan for R3

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

¶24

first respondent affirming the order of second respondent to cancel the various Document Nos.2751/2010, 298/2012, 1434/2016, 519/2017, 521/2017, 4908/2018 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodambakkam.

¶25

2. The Division Bench of this Court in M .Kathirvel vs. The

¶26

Inspector General of Registration (W.P.No.10291 of 2022 etc., batch, dated

¶27

02.08.2024), while striking down Section 77A of the Registration Act observed as follows:

¶28

175. WP.[MD].Nos.14674, 7704, 8987/2023;

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.26467 of 2023

¶32

16445,/2022; WP.Nos.10604/2020, 17719, 12480, 24805, 24610/2022 and 10858/2023.

¶33

The above writ petitions have been filed with a prayer for cancellation of documents or for cancelling registration of documents which are long before the amendment came. In view of the decision this Court had taken that Section 77-A as introduced by the amendment is unconstitutional, all the above writ petitions are dismissed as there is no scope for enquiry now under Section 77-A of the Act.

¶34

3. In view of the above order passed by the Division Bench of

¶35

this Court striking down Section 77A of the Registration Act, which empowered the registering authority to cancel the document on the ground of fraud, as on date, there is no enabling provision empowering the registering authority namely the second respondent to cancel the registered document. Therefore, the second respondent cannot proceed with any enquiry regarding the request of the fourth respondent seeking cancellation of the document.

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.26467 of 2023

¶39

Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

However, it is open to the fourth respondent to workout his remedy before the Civil Court in accordance with law. The fourth respondent is entitled to exclude the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings under Section 77A of Registration Act, while calculating limitation for filing Civil suit. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is 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.26467 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome,

¶48

Chennai – 28.

¶49

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Chennai Central Registration District, Chennai – 600 014.

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

W.P.No.26467 of 2023

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.26467 of 2023

23.09.2024

6/6

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

S.Iqbal v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Iqbal 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

M.Anuradha Vs the District Collector

S.Vijayalakshmi Vs the District Registrar

Kanniyammal Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Kuchi @ Lakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Periyamathi Vs the District Collector

Rama Balachandar Vs Government of Tamilnadu