IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:9-9-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.Nos.18061,18062 and 18013 of 2009 P.Ulaganathan ..Petitioners in W.P.Nos.18061 and 18062 of 2009 P.Neelavathy ..Petitioner in W.P.No.18013 of 2009 Versus 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-600 001. 2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Collector's Office, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Villivakkam, Near S.B.O.A.School, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600 040. ..Respondents in all WPs. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to register and return the document P.Nos.39 and 40 and 35 of 2009 dated 8.7.2009, 8.7.2009 and 2.7.2009 to the petitioners without insisting upon any No Objection Certificate. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghupathy For Respondents : Mr.D.Srinivasan Additional Government Pleader ORDER By consent of both sides, the writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioners have come before this court praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents to register and return the document P.Nos.39,40 and 35 of 2009 dated 8.7.2009, 8.7.2009 and 2.7.2009 respectively to the petitioners without insisting upon any No Objection Certificate. 2. No objection certificate has been insisted by virtue of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.O.Ms.No.150, Commercial Taxes dated 22.9.2000 issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. In a similar circumstance on refusal of registration of document, Section 22-A of the Registration Act, was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court, which held Section 22-A of the Registration Act as ultra vires. On an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, confirmed the judgement in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata reported in 2005 (4) CTC 606. 3. Since Section 22-A of the Registration Act 1908 itself was struck down by the Rajasthan High Court which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, refusal of registration of document under Section 22-A of the Act is not sustainable. In view of the judgement of the Supreme Court, the Government of Tamilnadu also issued G.O.Ms.No.139 CT & Registration (J1) dated 25.7.2008 withdrawing the G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 22.9.2000. 4. In view of the withdrawal of the G.O.Ms.No.150 Commercial Taxes Department dated 22.9.2000, the petitioners' documents conveying superstructures of the property belonging to the temple have to be registered by the authorities. Therefore the second and third respondents are directed to register the document Nos.39, 40 and 35 of 09 dated 8.7.2009, 8.7.2009 and 2.7.2009 and return the same to the petitioners respectively within two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vk To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-600 001. 2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Collector's Office, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Villivakkam, Near S.B.O.A.School, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600 040. + 3 c.cs. to M/s. V. Raghupathi, Advocate. S.R.Nos.45633 to 45635. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.Nos.45867 & 45868. W.P.Nos.18061,18062 and 18013 of 2009 MG (CO) GSK 11.09.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/