Disposed

Ameenammal v. the District Registrar

Madras HC8 Jul 2015WP(MD)/7385/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Sub-Registrar to consider the petitioner's representation alleging forgery of a property transaction within six weeks, after holding an inquiry and hearing interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation within six weeks after holding an inquiry and hearing interested parties.

Ameenammal Vs the District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :08.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.7385 of 2015

Ameenammal

... Petitioner

1.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram , Ramanathapuram District..

¶11

2.The Sub-Registrar, R.S.Mangalam, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District..

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders after holding an inquiry on the petitioner's complaint sent in the form of a representation dated 26.03.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court in the light of the Circular No.67 (Registration Department) dated 03.11.2011.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan

Govt.Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2015, as per Circular No.67 of the respondents herein. By the said representation, the petitioner has alleged that the property in question belonging to her have been forged. Therefore, she has requested the Registering authorities to cancel the Document No.54/2010 dated 18.01.2010 executed by one Mehar Banu in favour of one Sahul Hameed on account of its fraudulent nature of transactions.

¶19

Mrs.N.S.Karthikeyan learned Govt.Advocate takes notice https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the respondents.

¶20

¶21

By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondents, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶23

The learned Govt.Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶24

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.03.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram District.. 2.The Sub-Registrar,

¶32

R.S.Mangalam, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶33

+One cc to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate, SR.No.37944

¶34

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.no.37967 ssm

¶35

RL/5 c- 23/7/2015

¶36

W.P(MD).No.7385 of 2015

¶37

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

¶38

08.07.2015

Ameenammal v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameenammal 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

R. Uthayakuamr Vs the Managing Director

Sooriyakala, Vs the District Collector

M/S B.G. Naidu Sweets, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

L.Muppidathi, Vs the District Collector

S.Saravanan, Vs the Passport Officer

Xaavier Doss, Vs the District Collector