Allowed¶53

Sivarajkumar v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC21 Mar 2025WP/4439/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 77-A Registration Act struck down unconstitutional; M.Kathirvel v. Inspector General of Registration 2024 (4) CTC 769; District Registrar (Administration) Tiruppur cancellation of documents non-est; revival of cancelled registration documents; writ of certiorari Article 226 Constitution of India; Na.Ka.No.4292/Aa5/2022; private respondents referred to competent Civil Court; Tamil Nadu property registration; no costs; connected WMP closed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13.06.2023 made in Na.Ka.No.4292/Aa5/2022 are non-est, with consequent revival of the cancelled documents; writ petition allowed in the above terms with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.4949 of 2025) closed. ¶53

Sivarajkumar Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation proceedings dated 13.06.2023 of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.4292/Aa5/2022, effected under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, can stand after the Division Bench of this Court struck down Section 77-A as unconstitutional in M.Kathirvel and others v. Inspector General of Registration. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

It is declared that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 13.06.2023 made in Na.Ka.No.4292/Aa5/2022, by which documents were cancelled under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, are non-est in the eye of law, and the impugned proceedings are interfered with (quashed) on that ground alone, Section 77-A having been struck down as unconstitutional by the Division Bench in M.Kathirvel and others v. Inspector General of Registration (2024 (4) CTC 769).

¶50

Ratio / Principle

As a consequence of the impugned proceedings being non-est, the documents that were cancelled by virtue of that order stand revived.

¶50

Key takeaways

It is left open to the private respondents to agitate their right before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh J.), Writ Petition No. 4439 of 2025 with connected WMP No. 4949 of 2025, decided 21.03.2025: A writ of certiorari under Article 226 sought quashing of the proceedings dated 13.06.2023 in Na.Ka.No.4292/Aa5/2022 of the District Registrar (Administration), Tiruppur, by which documents were cancelled under Section 77-A of the Registration Act at the instance of private complainants (respondents 5 to 7). Taking note of the Division Bench judgment in M. Kathirvel v. Inspector General of Registration, 2024 (4) CTC 769, wherein Section 77-A was struck down as unconstitutional, the Court declared those proceedings non-est in the eye of law, quashed them on that ground alone, and revived the documents cancelled thereby, leaving the private respondents free to agitate their rights before the competent Civil Court. After notices (R5 and R6 served but absent; R7 to R12 unclaimed; R13 reported deceased), the writ petition was allowed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Writ Petition No.4439 of 2025 and WMP No.4949 of 2025

Sivarajkumar

…. Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Registrar (Administration) Office of the District Registrar Tiruppur.

¶11

3.The Sub Registrar (Joint No.1) Tiruppur

¶12

Tiruppur District.

¶13

4.The Sub Registrar Palladam

¶14

Tiruppur District.

¶15

5.Kulandaisamu

¶16

6.Balasubramani

¶17

7.Kavitha

¶18

8.Ramasamy

¶19

1 / 6

¶20

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

9.Peechiammal

10.Krishnaveni

11.Pushpavalli

12.Selvaraj

13.Selvam .. Respondents

¶26

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of impugned order dated 13.6.2023 in proceedings in Na Ka.Nio.4292/Aa5/2022 on the file of 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Dharani For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 for R5 & R6 no appearance for R7 to R12 no such person R 13 - died

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 13.06.2023.

¶30

2.When the writ petition came up for admission on 14.2.2025, this Court passed the following order:

¶31

2 / 6

¶32

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

¶33

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2023 wherein the second respondent has exercised his power and jurisdiction under Section 77-A of the Registration Act and cancelled the documents.

¶34

Heard Mr.B.Dharani, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Abishekmurthy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶35

It is not necessary for this Court to go into the various issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It will suffice to take note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel and others v. Inspector General of Registration [2024 (4) CTC 769] wherein Section 77-A has been struck down as unconstitutional. In view of the same, the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2023 is nonest in the eye of law and the same has to be interfered on that ground alone.

¶36

Since the order has been passed by the second respondent based on the application submitted by respondents 5 to 13, the order has to be quashed after giving them notice.

¶37

Mr.Abishekmurthy, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for respondents 1 to 4.

¶38

Notice to respondents 5 to 13 returnable by 28.02.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

¶39

Post on 28.02.2025 at the end of the motion list.

¶40

3.Pursuant to the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken

¶41

private notice to R5 and R6 and they have been served and their names have been printed in

¶42

3 / 6

¶43

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

¶44

the cause list. There is no appearance either in person or through counsel. Insofar as R7 to R12, notice sent has been returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. Insofar

¶45

as notice sent to R13 it has been returned with an endorsement “died”.

¶46

4.On going through the impugned proceedings, it is seen that the impugned

¶47

Order was passed by the 2^nd respondent only based on the complaint/representation made by the 5^th and 6^th respondents along with the 7^th respondent. Since the 5^th and

¶48

6^th respondents have been served, this Court proceeds to pass the order on merits.

¶49

5.Heard Mr.B.Dharani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4.

¶50

6.As stated in the order passed on 14.02.2025, the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 13.06.2023 becomes non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, it is declared that the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 13.06.2023 made in Na.Ka.No.4292/Aa5/2022, is non-est and as a consequence, the documents that were cancelled by virtue of this order will stand revived. It will be left open to the private respondents to agitate their right before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶51

4 / 6

¶52

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

¶53