Disposed

M/S Enmanangondan Muslim v. the District Registrar

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP(MD)/19438/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the District Registrar regarding a complaint about fraudulent registration of wakf land. The Court directed the Registrar to examine the complaint seriously and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Registrar to examine the petitioner's complaint and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

M/S Enmanangondan Muslim Vs the District Registrar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.12.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19438 of 2014

¶7

M/s. Enmanangondan Muslim Jamaath representd by its President, Mr.U.Ameer Hamsha. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶10

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to initiate appropriate legal action on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.11.2014 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the land in old Survey No.14 and new Survey No.24 measuring an extent of 19.50 acres situated in Enmanagondan, Uchipuli Post, Ramanathapuram District belongs to Pallivasal and it is a wakf property. It comes to be known that the said land was purchased by the petitioner Pallivasal through two registered sale deed dated 26.04.1937 and 20.04.1937. The said Pallivasal is in possession and enjoyment of the land as absolute owner ever since the date of purchase. It transpires that one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sulaiman, whose forefather was one of the trustee of the Pallivasal, taking advantage of the same, in collusion with two other relatives and officials manipulated some records and managed

¶16

¶17

to obtain patta in their name as per proceedings dated 14.12.1989 from the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram.

¶18

When that be the factual situation, the then President of the petitioner Pallivasal projected an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and after an elaborate enquiry and hearing both the parties and after considering the report sent by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer was pleased to set aside the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 14.02.1989 by means of an order dated 31.05.1993.

¶19

In the above factual background, the said Sulaiman along with others tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Pallivasal land and put up construction. As a result of which, the Pallivasal filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Ramanathapuram seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed for default.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that he had taken steps to set right the mistakes and ultimately, gave a complaint dated 06.11.2014 to the respondents requesting them to initiate action in regard to the illegality committed by Sulaiman and others, who have made fraudulent registrations and alienated and mortgaged the wakf land in Old S.No.14, New S.No.24 situated at Enmanagondan, Uchipuli Post, Ramanathapuram District. Till date, the respondents have not considered the complaint of the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the fact that the petitioner is seeking only a limited relief praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the first respondent to initiate appropriate legal action on his complaint dated 06.11.2014 within the time to be determined by this Court, this Court, in the interest of justice, fair play, equity, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the first respondent / District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District to look into the representation / complaint of the petitioner dated 06.11.2014 with all seriousness, earnestness and to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits ascribing necessary qualitative and quantitative reasons within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (ofcourse after providing due opportunity to the petitioner and others concerned if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice).

¶22

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleadings before the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to consider the same and to pass orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within the time determined by this Court.

¶23

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Asistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

To
1.	The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2.	The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram.
+On	e cc to M/s.D.Nallathambi, Advocate, SR.No.64646
+On	e cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.64855
akv RL/	5 c- 19/12/2014
	W.P(MD)No.19438 of 2014 02.12.2014

¶27

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

M/S Enmanangondan Muslim v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Enmanangondan Muslim v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt. a. Vijaya Thangam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Abdul Wahith, Vs the District Collector

Nagarajan, Vs the District Supdt. of Police

Ganesan, Vs the Supdt. of Police

H. Habeeb Navashkhan, Vs the Passport Officer

K.S. Kandhasamy Vs the Inspector of General of