Judgment : Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The power holders of the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions before this Court praying for calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the fourth respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to the petitioners' lands in Survey No.65/7, New Survey No.300 and B12 Survey No.65/4, New Survey No.300 respectively in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District and to quash the same, as illegal. Further, a consequential order is sought in directing the sixth respondent to take on the Sale Deed and register the documents in respect of the lands. 3. According to the petitioners, they being power of attorney holders and their Principal had purchased the land measuring an extent of 2323.81 sq.ft. from the legal heir one Mathavlala and an extent of 2117 sq.ft. from one Ramaya @ Ramakonar in Kalanivasal Village in Karaikudi Taluk in the year 1993 and 2005 respectively through a registered Sale Deed. Thereafter, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, they need of money and as they intended to sell the properties, they executed power of attorney in their favour on 25.03.2009 and 06.09.2009 respectively authorising them to sell and deal with the properties and to institute any legal proceeding in respect of the said land on their behalf. Hence, they were approached by a few buyers, who offered to buy their properties. However, when transactions almost got finalised and when they visited the office of the sixth respondent to present the sale deed in July 2014, they were informed that no document for deed witnessing any conveyance of any property in Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village of Karaikudi Taluk could be registered on account of the impugned proceedings issued by the Fourth Respondent. 4. The petitioners were able to obtain the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 25.03.2009, by which the sixth respondent / Sub Registrar, Karaikudi was directed not to register any document in respect of lands in Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk. The said impugned proceedings was passed on the basis that the said lands in Survey No.65 was erroneously sub-divided by the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai without jurisdiction. The said impugned proceedings was passed on the basis that the said lands in Survey No.65 was erroneously sub-divided by the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai without jurisdiction. On the strength of the said impugned proceedings, the sixth respondent has been refusing to entertain any documents for registration. Hence, they preferred a representations to the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 seeking their intervention. On the basis of their representations, they were informed that the second respondent, by his proceedings dated 20.01.2012, already clarified to the fifth respondent that the Registrars should not refuse registration. Also, they came to know that the first respondent had also by his communication dated 10.04.2012, had stated that the Government has been appraised of the fact that the land in Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village are classified as 'Ryotwari Dry' and not vested in the Government at the time of settlement and that the third respondent had misconstrued the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai between the year 1983-85 was beyond his jurisdiction and considered those orders on par with the other fraudulent orders passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai after the year 1996. It is only due to the misconception of the fact that the fourth respondent by the impugned order had directed the sixth respondent not to register any document in respect of such lands. 5. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in proceedings dated 10.04.2012, the first respondent had stated that the properties in issue are not classified as Government Poromboke Land nor Anadheenam Lands and that the fourth respondent had no justifications or jurisdiction to suspend the registration of documents in respect of Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk and therefore, requested the District Collector, the third respondent to direct the fourth respondent to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009. He was able to obtain the copies of the aforesaid proceedings from the office of the fourth respondent in September 2014. As a matter of fact, the communication dated 10.04.2012 of the first respondent has not been withdrawn till today and it is alone alive. 6. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the sixth respondent is not permitting them to present the Documents/Deeds in respect of the property in issue for registration. 7. As a matter of fact, the communication dated 10.04.2012 of the first respondent has not been withdrawn till today and it is alone alive. 6. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the sixth respondent is not permitting them to present the Documents/Deeds in respect of the property in issue for registration. 7. It is the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners that the sixth Respondent cannot refuse registration on the basis of instruction issued by the Government or any other body. Likewise, the fourth respondent is not empowered under any law to issue the impugned proceedings whereby directing the Registrar not to register any sale deed in respect of the petitioners' lands. 8. When that be the aforesaid factual scenario, the petitioners presented the documents in respect of their properties through their power of attorneys on the file of sixth respondent on 07.10.2014 together with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.04.2012 seeking to register the document, as per the proceedings of the first respondent. However, the sixth respondent has refused to entertain the same. 9. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the Registering Authority, under the Registration Act, 1908, has power to register a 'Document', which is permissible to be registered. As such, in the instant case, in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 25.03.2009, whereby a direction was given to the Sub Registrar I & II of Karaikudi not to register the documents in respect of Survey No.65 (sub divided as 298 to 323 as new numbers) and imposed a temporary ban, is not legally valid one in the eye of law. 10. Also, the Learned counsel for the petitioners reference to a recent order dated 28.10.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014 between M.Malathy vs. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai and five others, wherein this Court, on a similar issue, has allowed the writ petition and resultantly, sets aside the order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the fourth respondent for the reasons ascribed therein. Also, this Court, in the said writ petition, had issued a directions to the effect that "as and when the petitioner presents the document for registration, if the same is in accordance with law, then, the sixth respondent shall register the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law etc." 11. In view of the fact that the reliefs sought for by the present writ petitioners in W.P. (MD).Nos.19402 and 19403 of 2014 are similar to that of the reliefs prayed for in W.P. No. (MD).No.17325 of 2014 and this Court, by following the order dated 28.10.2014 in W.P. (MD).No.17325 of 2014, allows the present writ petitions, by setting aside the impugned order of the fourth respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09 dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to petitioners' land in Survey Nos.65/7 and B12 65/4, New Survey No.300 respectively in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and quash the same in the interest of justice. Further, this Court passes an order to the effect that as and when the petitioners through the power of attorney holders present the 'Documents' for registration, if the same are in accordance with Law, then, the sixth Respondent shall register the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.