W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) No.3036 & 3037 of 2025 A.Nalla Thambi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Registrar (Admin), O/o. the District Registrar Office (Madurai North), Othakadai, Madurai District. 2. The Sub Registrar, Karupaioorani, Madurai District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Tharuvaikulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 5. S.Ramamoorthy 6. Jasmine Farzana ...Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in No. 4527/AA2/2022 dated 30.08.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2022 regarding the fraudulent settlement deed executed by 6th respondent in favour of 5th respondent dated 19.04.2022 registered as Document No. 2068/2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent as well as for appropriate action against them under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act in view the report of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Sivaram For Respondents : Mr. G.Suriya Ananth, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2. : Mrs.M.Aasha Government Advocate for R3 and R4 ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent in No.4527/AA2/2022 dated 30.08.2022 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2022 regarding the fraudulent settlement deed 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 executed by 6th respondent in favour of 5th respondent dated 19.04.2022 registered as Document No. 2068/2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent as well as for appropriate action against them under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act in view the report of the 3rd respondent. 2.The brief facts are that the 6th respondent has executed a gift deed in favour of the 5th respondent dated 19.04.2022. The land covered in the said document is already shown in the suit in O.S.No.161/21 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The petitioner is in possession of the original document but concealing the same, the 6th respondent has preferred a complaint before the concerned police station that the said document is not traceable. The contention of the 5th and 6th respondent is that the concerned police station has issued an non-traceable certificate before the authority. But it is submitted that the concerned police station has received a complaint. After enquiry it is seen there is no evidence to state that the documents was lost for which the petitioner has relied on the communication as follows: “kDjhuu; gj;jpuk; njhiye;jjhf $wg;gLk; rk;gtk; njhlu;ghf rk;gt ,lk; nrd;W tprhuiz nra;jjpy; gj;jpuk; njhiye;jjw;fhd ve;jtpj Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iy vd njupa te;jjhy; ,k;kD kPjhd Nky;eltbf;if iftplg;gl;L kD kPjhd tprhuiz ,j;Jld; 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 Kbf;fg;gLfpwJ.” 3. Therefore the said certificate would not have been issued by the concerned police station at all. Hence, it is fake. Without considering all these facts, the respondents have passed the present impugned order. In fact the respondents have not called the petitioner for enquiry at all. Had the respondent is called for enquiry, the petitioner would have submitted all these documents and it would have been evident that the 5th and 6th respondent had committed criminal offence which attracts enquiry under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the complaint was received. Thereafter based on the complaint submitted by the private respondents, the official respondents had passed the said order directing the petitioner to approach the civil Court. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that eventhough the official respondents is not having the power to cancel the documents, however, they ought to have conducted enquiry under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 impugned order is quashed. The first respondent is strictly directed to conduct enquiry under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, after issuing notice to all the rival claimants namely, the petitioner as well as the 5th and 6th respondents and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PJL To 1. The District Registrar (Admin), O/o. the District Registrar Office (Madurai North), Othakadai, Madurai District. 2. The Sub Registrar, Karupaioorani, Madurai District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Tharuvaikulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY , J. PJL ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.4228 of 2025 DATED : 29.08.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis