In a landmark judgment on Friday, the Madras High Court has declared Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, unconstitutional. The contentious section, introduced through a 2022 State amendment, granted District Registrars extensive quasi-judicial powers to cancel property documents registered under fraudulent circumstances or with forged documents.
Justices S.S. Sundar and N. Senthilkumar presided over the case, stemming from a cluster of approximately 200 writ petitions challenging the amendment. The justices criticized the excessive powers conferred upon District Registrars, noting that such powers could lead to “unimaginable hardship and irretrievable damage” to the real owners of properties, impacting many across the state.
The court highlighted that while Section 77-A might provide a swift remedy in isolated incidents, its broader implications could destabilize property ownership, turning numerous properties litigious without adequate judicial oversight. The existing sections, 22-A and 22-B of the Act, already empower officials to refuse registration of certain documents, but Section 77-A extended these powers to cancel already registered documents, a move the court found overreaching.
The Division Bench expressed concern over the qualifications of District Registrars, who are not required to be legally trained, drawing a stark comparison to the robust legal scrutiny expected in civil courts. “The District Registrar is bound by circulars rather than precedents, which undermines the adjudication process,” the court noted.
The judgment also addressed the issue of separation of powers, emphasizing that Section 77-A effectively created a parallel forum to the judiciary, improperly vesting judicial responsibilities in the executive branch. This, the court deemed an overstep, likely to result in biased decisions, especially in disputes involving government claims.
While the court acknowledged that canceled registrations could still be contested in civil courts, it pointed out the lack of finality in decisions made under Section 77-A, undermining the legislative intent and the fundamental principles of judicial determination regarding property titles.
Also Read
Concluding the 426-page verdict, Justice Sundar remarked, “The object of the Registration Act is to maintain public records relating to immovable properties and not to adjudicate title disputes based solely on registered documents.” The judgment reaffirms the role of the judiciary in determining property titles and underscores the importance of keeping judicial powers within trained legal professionals.
