ORDER : 1. The issue involved in both these writ petitions are interconnected and they are considered together, heard and disposed of through this common order. 2. WP No.25817 of 2023, has been filed challenging the circular issued by the 1 st respondent dated 31.07.2018 and the order passed by the 3 rd respondent dated 21.06.2022, following the said circular and also the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in appeal dated 20.07.2023 and for a consequential direction to the 4 th respondent to cancel the settlement deed dated 07.12.2022 registered as document No.10427 of 2022 and the sale deed dated 24.07.2023 registered as document No.5994 of 2023. 3. WP No.28027 of 2023, has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 22.08.2023 as illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. 4. Heard Mr.V.Arun, learned counsel for Mrs.R.Revathy learned counsel for the petitioner in both Wps and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 in WP No.28027 of 2023 and for respondents 1 to 4 and 11 in WP No.25817 of 2023 and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for R4 in WP No.28027 of 2023 and for respondent 5 to 9 in WP No.25817 of 2023. 5. The petitioner is claiming right and title over the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2005. A complaint was given by the 5 th respondent against the petitioner and his brother and parallelly a suit was filed by the 5 th respondent in OS No.1383 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, seeking for the relief of declaration of title and to declare the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 as null and void, since it was executed by the power agent after the cancellation of the power given to her. 6. In the year 2021, the 5 th respondent gave a complaint to the District Registrar to cancel the sale deed dated 13.05.2005 under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act. The District Registrar based on the circular issued by the 1 st respondent, passed an order that the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 has been fraudulently registered and allowed the Sub Registrar to carry out further transactions with respect to the property. The District Registrar did not actually cancel the sale deed but only held that the sale deed has been fraudulently registered. This proceedings including the circular was challenged in WP No.27297 of 2023 before this Court. The District Registrar did not actually cancel the sale deed but only held that the sale deed has been fraudulently registered. This proceedings including the circular was challenged in WP No.27297 of 2023 before this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the 2 nd respondent. In the meantime, the 5 th respondent settled the suit property in favour of the respondents 6 to 9 through a registered settlement deed dated 07.12.2022. After the execution of this document, the suit that was pending in OS No.1383 of 2011 (which was renumbered as OS No.330 of 2020) was withdrawn and the Trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn on 03.02.2023. 7. Ultimately, the appellate authority passed an order on 20.07.2023 against the appeal and directed the parties to settle the title dispute before competent Civil Court. While passing the order, the appellate authority modified the order of the 3 rd respondent to remove the entry of the fraudulent sale. The petitioner also made a representation to the 4 th respondent to act upon the order passed by the Appellate authority viz., the 2 nd respondent. While so, the respondents 6 to 9 executed a sale deed in favour of the 10 th respondent through a sale deed dated 24.07.2023 which was registered as document No.5994 of 2023. 8. The petitioner filed a suit in OS No.149 of 2023 before the II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, to declare that the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 is valid and also to declare the settlement deed executed by the 5 th respondent in favour of respondents 6 to 9 dated 07.12.2022 and also the subsequent sale deed that was executed by respondents 6 to 9 in favour of 10 th respondent dated 24.07.2023 as null and void and non-est. In that suit, the respondents in these writ petitions are the defendants. 9. In the meantime, based on the complaint given before the District Registrar, the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 was passed in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 77A of the Registration Act and the sale deed registered as document No.3053 of 2005 dated 13.10.2005 was cancelled.The same has been put to challenge in WP No.28027 of 2023. 10. 9. In the meantime, based on the complaint given before the District Registrar, the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 was passed in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 77A of the Registration Act and the sale deed registered as document No.3053 of 2005 dated 13.10.2005 was cancelled.The same has been put to challenge in WP No.28027 of 2023. 10. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the District Registrar dated 22.08.2023 cancelling the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 77A of the Registration Act is non est in the eye of law, in view of the judgement of the Division Bench in [M. Kathirvel Vs. The Inspector General of Registration Department of Registration and Others, ( 2024) 4 CTC 769] wherein Section 77A of the Registration Act was held to be unconstitutional. Hence, the order passed by the District Registrar has to be interfered on that ground alone. 11. Insofar as the challenge that has been made in the other writ petition in WP No.25817 of 2023, the scope of Section 68(2) of the Registration Act was gone into by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. P.V.R.K. Anjaneeya Guptha vs. M. Anbazhagan and others, ( 2024) 4 CTC 1 wherein it was held that the said provision cannot be held to confer such powers to enable the declaration of document as null and void. Hence, the grievance that has been expressed by the petitioner in WP No.25817 of 2023 is sufficiently taken care of by the above judgement of the Division Bench. 12. The consequential direction sought for by the petitioner in WP No. 25817 of 2023 to cancel the Settlement deed dated 07.12.2022 and the sale deed dated 24.07.2023 is beyond the jurisdiction of the 4 th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily independently question those documents in the manner known to law. 13. There is already a pending suit in OS No.149 of 2023 wherein the petitioner has sought for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 to be a valid document. In this suit, it will be left open to the petitioner to question the settlement deed and the subsequent sale deeds. 13. There is already a pending suit in OS No.149 of 2023 wherein the petitioner has sought for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 to be a valid document. In this suit, it will be left open to the petitioner to question the settlement deed and the subsequent sale deeds. Since the 5 th respondent has already withdrawn the suit that was filed questioning the sale deed dated 13.10.2005, due to the subsequent developments, it will be left open to the private respondents to file a counter claim in the pending suit in OS No.149 of 2023 and work out their remedy. This direction will sufficiently take care of the right and interest of both the parties. 14. In the result, the WP No.28027 of 2023 is allowed and WP No.25817 of 2023 is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.