Disposed

M. Veetayan, v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC2 Sept 2014WP(MD)/12298/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to the second respondent to dispose of his representation regarding potential fraudulent transactions based on Circular No. 67. The Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and fourth respondent and pass orders on merits within three months.

M. Veetayan, Vs the Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12298 of 2014

M.Vettayan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration O/o.Inspector General of Registration

¶11

100, Santhome High Road

¶12

Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028

¶13

2.The District Registrar Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar

¶14

3.The Sub-Registrar Aruppukottai

¶15

Virudhunagar District

¶16

4.Alagammal ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.05.2014, on the light of the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Murugan

¶19

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Guru, A.G.P.,

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 27.05.2014, in the light of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶23

¶24

3.Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without issuing notice to the fourth respondent, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the petitioner's claim. However, the second respondent is empowered to enquire into such claims of fraudulent transactions in exercise of powers conferred under Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, which has been upheld by this Court in the case of Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2014 (4) CTC 627 .

¶25

In the light of the above, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 27.05.2014, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶26

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub-Asistant Registrar

¶31

To:

¶32

1.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o.Inspector General of Registration,

¶33

100, Santhome High Road,

¶34

Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.

¶35

2.The District Registrar,

¶36

Virudhunagar District,

¶37

Virudhunagar.

¶38

3.The Sub-Registrar, Aruppukottai,

¶39

Virudhunagar District.

¶40

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.49442

¶41

krk

¶42

RL/5c – 16/9/2014

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.12298 of 2014

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

02.09.2014

M. Veetayan, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Veetayan, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Eswari Vs the Superintendent of

Sara Aqua Minerals, Vs the Bureau of Indian Standards

P. Senthil Ganesh, Vs the Joint Registrar

G.Vigneshwaran, Vs the Branch Manager

P.Muthurakku, Vs the Chief Secretary

M.Mary Vs the District Collector