Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sofiya, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent, the District Registrar of Dindigul, to pass suitable orders on her representation dated 29.06.2024. The representation sought cancellation of a partition deed registered as Document No. 939/2024 dated 21.06.2024 at the Kallimanthayam Sub-Registrar Office, invoking Section 77-A of the Registration Act. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sadesh Kumar, the Additional Government Pleader Mr. D. Sadiq Raja for respondents 1 to 4, and Mr. S. Krishnan for the fifth respondent. The court noted that Section 77-A of the Registration Act had been declared unconstitutional by a competent court. Therefore, the representation submitted by the petitioner under that provision could not be considered, rendering the writ petition devoid of merits. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh complaint to take appropriate action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, if so advised. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan on 02.01.2025.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Statute - Section 77-A of the Registration Act - Unconstitutionality - The provision under Section 77-A of the Registration Act has been declared unconstitutional by a competent court. Consequently, any representation made under that provision cannot be considered by the registering authority. The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a direction to consider such representation, but granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's representation under Section 77-A of the Registration Act for cancellation of a partition deed can be considered when the provision has been declared unconstitutional.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh complaint to take appropriate action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, if so advised.
Law Points
- Section 77-A of the Registration Act declared unconstitutional
- representation under said provision cannot be considered
- alternative remedy under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act available
