Allowed a writ petition under Article 226 directing respondents 1 and 2 to delete a specific land registry entry made by respondent 4, which was predicated on unchallenged findings of fraud by respondent 1 and police findings by respondent 3.
Directing respondent No. 2 to delete the entry D. No. 15372 of 2012 made by respondent No. 4 within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 14.12.2015
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
W.P.No.16997 of 2013
V.Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner
Vs. 1. The District Registrar, Thiruvannamalai Registrar Office, Thiruvannamalai. 2. The Joint Registrar No.2, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to delete the entry made by the 4th respondent as D. No. 15372 of 2012 dt 26.12.2012 at the office of the 2nd respondent based on the findings of the 1st respondent dated 15.4.2013 in Na. Ka. No.399/Aa1/2012 and the 3rd respondent dated 9.4.2013 C.N.484 FBG/5P/2013 dt 5.1.2013 and C.N. 124/A L G S L/ USM/ 2013 dt 5.1.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Thilageswaran
O R D E R
It is seen from the records, that the matter has been adjourned from time to time at the request of respondent No.4. There was no representation on the earlier occasion on his behalf and the same is the case today. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass appropriate orders on merits.
by respondent No.4 at the office of respondent No.2 based upon the findings of respondents 1 and 3.
W.P.No.16997 of 2013
CA (CO) kk 4/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Registrar is directed to delete a registration entry made by the petitioner based on fraud findings.
Whether the delay in response by the petitioner justifies passing orders on merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. Kalaiselvi
The District Registrar, Thiruvannamalai
The Joint Registrar No.2, Thiruvannamalai District
The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Prevention Cell
T. Devendran
M.M. Sundresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
