Disposed

S.Zahir Hussain v. the Deputy Inspector General

Madras HC1 Jul 2016WP(MD)/10166/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 was filed seeking a mandamus directing the Registration Department to examine a pending representation for cancelling a sale deed. The bench directed the Second Respondent to investigate the representation within two weeks and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to lend assistance, while the Second Respondent ordered to investigate the representation within two weeks and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

S.Zahir Hussain Vs the Deputy Inspector General — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10166 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.7942 of 2016

¶7

S.Zahir Hussain ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, O/o.DIG of Registration, St. Mark Street,

¶9

Sankar Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

The District Registrar, Department of Registration, O/o. District Collector, Korampallam, Tuticorin.

¶11

The Sub Registrar, Department of Registration, Kayalpattinam, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly, the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.12.2015 submitted for the cancellation of the deed of sale dated 02.04.1981 bearing document No.463 of 1981 on the file of the third respondent by conducting appropriate enquiry proceedings forthwith and dispose of the same within a time frame as specified by this Court on merits and in accordance with law forthwith.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Palanivelayutham For Respondents : Mr.S.Sades Kumar Additional Govt. Pleader

¶14

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

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

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

¶19

No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.

¶20

According to the Petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents particularly, the second respondent to consider his representation dated 10.12.2015 submitted in regard to the cancellation of sale deed dated 02.04.1981 bearing Document No.463/1981 on the file of the Third Respondent by conducting an appropriate enquiry.

¶21

The grievance of the Petitioner is that his representation dated 10.12.2015 in the subject matter in issue has not seen the light of the day and it is still pending on the file of District Registrar, Department of Registration, Tuticorin.

¶22

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the vendors as well as the purchasers to the sale deed dated 02.04.1981 had suppressed the real legal-heirs of one Mohamed Abdul Khader Hajiar and therefore, the sale deed is not a genuine one and even the registration of the said document itself is per se not valid. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that all the other legal-heirs including the petitioner are entitled to inherit the disputed properties. Therefore, the Petitioner has addressed a representation dated 10.12.2015 to the Second Respondent and the same is pending as on date without any progress.

¶23

Considering the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 10.12.2015 is pending on the file of the Second Respondent, at this stage, this Court, simpliciter, directs the Second Respondent to look into the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.12.2015 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Second Respondent shall pass orders on the representation of the Petitioner, on merits, in a fair, free, unbiased and in a dispassionate manner by passing a reasoned speaking order within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶24

It is open to the Second Respondent to issue necessary notice to the concerned parties prior to the commencement of enquiry or dealing with the representation of the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 10.12.2015 and to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within the time adumbrated by this Court. The Petitioner is directed to lend his assistance and unstinted co-

¶25

¶26

operation to the Second Respondent so as to enable him to dispose of the representation in issue within the time fixed by this Court as stated supra.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ

¶28

Petition stands disposed of. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(W) /True Copy/

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, O/o.DIG of Registration, St. Mark Street, Sankar Colony, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2. The District Registrar, Department of Registration, O/o. District Collector, Korampallam, Tuticorin. 3. The Sub Registrar, Department of Registration, Kayalpattinam, Tuticorin District. +One cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate, SR.No.34493 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.34516 akv RL/6C/3P/AAL/MPA/18/7/2016

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.10166 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.7942 of 2016

¶34

01.07.2016

¶35

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

S.Zahir Hussain v. the Deputy Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Zahir Hussain v. the Deputy Inspector General

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.Nagarajan Vs the District Collector

Abdul Salam Sulaiman Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Sekar, S/O.Vellaichamy Vs the District Collector

G.Pushpa Rani Vs the Executive Officer

Rajendran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Mohamed Iqbal, Vs the Inspector General of