Judgment :- F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Admit Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel, takes notice for Respondent No.1 and the learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for Respondents 2 to 4. 2. This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board seeking to challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 7.1.2010, passed in W.P. (MD) No.12278 of 2009. In the order passed in the Writ Petition, which was preferred by the 1st Respondent herein, the learned Single Judge took the view that the Appellant therein has no right to object to the registration of a document presented before the 4th Respondent, that as and when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the 4th Respondent to register the same and he has no power to withhold that document, except issues regarding violations of payment of stamp duty in which case the document will have to be referred to the Collector for determination of proper stamp duty payable thereon and that the objection of the Wakf Board cannot be decided by the 4th Respondent since they have to work out their remedy by challenging the document if they have any valid objections. 3. This order of the learned Single Judge raises an interesting question of law inasmuch under provisions of the Registration Act there is no specific provision providing for any objection being raised at the instance of third parties to the documents as regards the registration of the document. Though there is an amendment to the Registration Act by way of Section 22-A by the State of Tamil Nadu under Act 2 of 2009, which inter alia empowers the Registering Officer to refuses registration in respect of certain types of transfer of immovable properties by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease belonging to the State Government, local authority, etc., including the properties belonging to Wakfs which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakfs Board established under the Wakfs Act, 1995, it is state that the said amendment has not yet been notified for implementation. 4. Be that as it may a learned Judge of this Court in the decision in S. Rangarajan v. The District Registrar, Tiruchirapalli and another, 2008 (4) LW 411 , has taken a diametrically opposite view than one taken by the learned Judge in the order impugned in this Write Appeal. 4. Be that as it may a learned Judge of this Court in the decision in S. Rangarajan v. The District Registrar, Tiruchirapalli and another, 2008 (4) LW 411 , has taken a diametrically opposite view than one taken by the learned Judge in the order impugned in this Write Appeal. In the said reported decision, the learned Judge has held as under: “14. The arguments of Mr. R. Subramaniam, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that whatever document is dumped on the Regiatrur should be registered without any questioning cannot be accepted. The Petitioner is seeking for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to the authorities for registering his document. Such a Writ Petitioner is an equitable remedy and the Court’s power to issue such Writs are discretionary. When a person comes before this Court seeking for a direction to register his property, he must be able to prove to this Court that he has a clear title. Even otherwise, if the real owner of the property also appears, before the Court and objects to the registration by the Registrar, then the parties must be relegated to appropriate Civil Court for determining the question of title. Otherwise, the office of the Registrar will become mere a Post Office the only duty being collecting stamp duty to fill the Government coffers. 15. So long as the Third Respondents temple is able to satisfy this Court that they are the real owners and eligible to get patta for the land in question, this Court cannot give any direction to a statutory authority to perform a duty which will be violating provisions of law. In such circumstances, the court can decline to grant relief to the Petitioner. 5. Under Section 51(1) of the Wakfs Act, 1995, it is specifically provided as under: 51. Alienation of Wakf property without sanction of Board to be void.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the wakf deed, any gift, sale or exchange, mortgage of any immovable property which is wakf property shall be void unless such gift, sale, exchange or mortgage is effected with the prior sanction of the Board: 6. The said provision is analogous to Section 34(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which reads as under: “34. The said provision is analogous to Section 34(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which reads as under: “34. Alienation of immovable trust property.- (1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner and being necessary or beneficial to the institution.” 7. There is also a provision under the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Section 5(1) of the said Act specifically prohibits registration of any document in relation to an immovable property, unless the Patta Pass Book relating to such property is produced before such Registering Authority. 8. In the above state background, a specific question of law arises for consideration as to whether in the absence of any specific provision under the Registration Act, when it is brought to the notice of the Registering Authority about the right of any party to claim ownership is disputed by an objector, the Registering Authority is empowered to withhold such a registration and release of document in favour of the party who seeks for such registration. 9. Having regard to the divergent opinion of two learned Judges of this Court as well as the question of law involved herein, we deem it appropriate to refer the said question to a Larger Bench in order to get an authoritative pronouncement on this question. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers before My Lord The Hon’ble The Chief Justice for appropriate order for making necessary reference to a Full Bench. 10. There shall be an order of interim stay, pending further orders. 11. Having regard to the reference which we propose to make and the fact that the various factors referred to above which persuade us to make this reference were not available before us while passing orders in W.P. (MD) No.162/2010, we seek to suo-motu review our order dated 10.03.2010 made in 162/2010 and by reviewing our order, the said W.P. (MD) No.162/2010 shall also be linked along with this Writ Appeal and posted together. Provided that no mosque, dargah or Khangah shall be gifted, sold exchanged or mortgaged except in accordance with any law for the being in force.”