(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of order issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents in Letter No. 2427/A1/ 2024 dated 07.10.2024 and Na.Ka. No. 257/e 2/2020 dated 23.07.2021 and quash the same as illegal, unwarranted and not established in the eye of law.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents dated 07.10.2024 and 23.07.2021 and seeks to quash the same.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner company purchased the properties situated at Sunnambu Kolthur Village, Unmai Nagar, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District, formerly under Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No.369/1A, as per patta number 382, then in Survey No.369/63 as per patta number 17800 and bearing Plot Nos. 90, 91 and 92, measuring 2280 sq.ft., 2280 sq.ft., and 219 sq.ft. respectively, and in total measuring about 6750 sq.ft. through registered Sale deeds dated 18.12.2018, registered as documents No's 10305 of 2018, 10306 of 2018 and 10307 of 2018, respectively, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram.

3. According to the petitioner, these properties were conveyed to the petitioner company by one Mrs. Hemamalini, and she acquired-properties vide a registered Settlement Deed executed by her father S. Kandhasamy, on 30.11.2018 and registered as Document No. 9643 of 2018 before the Sub- Registrar, Pallavaram. The Patta. No. 17786 originally stood in the name of S. Kandhasamy and subsequently, after purchasing the property, the petitioner company applied for transfer of patta and upon scrutiny and physical inspection, the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, issued patta in the petitioner company's name and accordingly, Patta. No's. 17884, 17885 and 17886 were issued, and new sub-division numbers were given for 3 plots as 369/63B, 369/63C and 369/63D, respectively.

4. It is further submitted that after mutation of the Revenue records the petitioner company had applied for planning permission with special officer, St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union to put up a superstructure in each of the plots of the above said property and the same was duly approved by the statutory authority concerned vide planning permit No. 232/2019 for Plot No. 90, Planning Permit No. 346/2019 for Plot No. 91 and Planning Permit No. 391/2019 for Plot No. 92 respectively. The petitioner company has constructed 15 flats, out of which 10 flats were sold to third parties. Now the company is holding the remaining 5 flats.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one Mrs. G.Meena, the 3rd respondent herein, made a representation dated 03.01.2021 to the 2nd Respondent, claiming herself as the absolute owner of the above said properties, wherein the said representation, the petitioner company was not added as a party. The 2nd respondent conducted the enquiry without notice to the Petitioner's Company in proceedings vide Na.Ka.No: 257/e2/2020 and passed an order dated 23.07.2021, to cancel the petitioner's registered Sale deeds dated 18.12.2018, registered as documents Nos. 10305 of 2018, 10306 of 2018 and 10307 of 2018, and recognised the 3rd respondent as the rightful owner in respect of above said property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 3rd respondent thereafter issued a legal notice dated 04.01.2021 to the petitioner's company claiming ownership and calling upon the petitioner's company to vacate the premises of the above said property. The petitioner's company replied vide reply notice dated 12.01.2021. In order to avoid any further claims from the respondent, the petitioner company immediately filed a Suit for Declaration in O.S. No. 103 of 2021, on 11.03.2021, pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, till date. Subsequently the 3rd respondent issued a rejoinder notice dated 20.10.2021 wherein she disclosed about the cancellation order passed in Na.Ka.No: 257/e2/2020 dated 23.07.2021 by the 2nd respondent. It is pertinent to note that the above-mentioned proceedings are not disclosed in the legal notice dated 04.01.2021. The petitioner company then filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 24830 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Court, challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent. This Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 25.07.2022 directed the petitioner company to file an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. The petitioner company filed an appeal dated 12.02.2024 before the 1st Respondent, challenging the cancellation order dated 23.07.2021 bearing Na. Ka. No. 257/E2/2020 passed by the District Registrar, Chennai South. It is further contended that the petitioner company thereafter filed petition to reopen and conduct enquiry on the appeal filed by the company and the said appeal was rejected on ground that this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 passed an order dated 02.08.2024 holding there is no power for the District Registrar to entertain the appeal for cancellation of document for irregularities in registration under the registration Act vide order in Letter. No.2427/A1/2024 dated 07.10.2024.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order passed by the 1st & 2nd respondents in Letter.No.2427/A1/2024 dated 07.10.2024 and Na.Ka.No:257/e 2/2020 dated 23.07.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and against the law. Further, the petitioner was not made a party to the said proceedings and hence, liable to be set aside.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the 1st respondent has erred by dismissing the appeal made by the petitioner company, stating that it is not maintainable before him, as he has no powers and instead has not directed both parties to approach the civil court. It is also contended that the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have considered that the question of title regarding immovable property ought to be gone into properly, because a mass of evidence may be required for adjudicating the question of title. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned orders dated 23.07.2021 and 07.10.2024.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has no authority to cancel or nullify the Settlement Deed, especially in the face of decree of a competent civil Court. Further, he would submit that Division Bench of this Court in a batch of cases vide Judgment dated 02.08.2024 in W.P.No.10291 of 2022, etc., batch has held that Section 77A of the Registration Act is unconstitutional and it has no retrospective effect and the registering authority has no power to cancel or invalidate the documents already registered and relegated the parties to the Civil Court. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid Judgment, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed.

10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents1 and 2 also accepted the said contention and prayed for appropriate orders.

11. Notice has already been issued to the 3rd respondent but there is no appearance for the 3rd respondent.

12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and in view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.08.2024 in W.P.Nos.10291 of 2022, etc., batch, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 is set aside. It is pertinent to note that the 1st respondent pointed out that Section 77-A of the Act is already held unconstitutional by this Court and therefore, the 1st respondent-authority can relegate the parties to Civil Court, if so advised.

13. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.