Disposed

Al.Kannan v. the District Registrar

Madras HC8 Nov 2016WP(MD)/19236/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court ordered the Joint Sub-Registrar to consider a representation by the petitioner dated 18.12.2015 concerning fraudulent General Power Deeds. The Court directed the enrollment of rival claimants and required a decision on merits within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2015, issue notice to rival claimants, and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

Al.Kannan Vs the District Registrar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 08.11.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Writ Petition (MD)No.19236 of 2016

¶6

AL. Kannan . . . Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The District Registrar, O/o. District Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶9

The Joint Sub-Registrar No. 2, Joint Sub-Registrar No. 2 office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. . . . Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2015 and thereby direct the second respondent to take appropriate action to cancel the documents in respect of fraudulent Registration of General Power Deed Nos.127/2014 and 128/2014 as per the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 150/Aa1/2014 dated 20.05.2015 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.V.Manikandan For respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj

¶12

Government Advocate.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The writ petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 18.12.2015 and thereby direct the second respondent to take appropriate action to cancel the documents in respect of fraudulent Registration of General Power Deed Nos.127/2014 and 128/2014, as per the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 150/Aa1/2014 dated 20.05.2015 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the first respondent, vide order dated 20.05.2015 in Na.Ka.No. 150/Aa1/2014, directed the second respondent to take action under Section 83 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration Act for the alleged forged power of attorney and the petitioner has also made a representation to the second

¶16

¶17

respondent, on 18.12.2015. Even though the order has been passed on 20.05.2015, the second respondent did not take any action so far. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

¶18

In the above said circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.12.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the rival claimants, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

4.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS I)

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The District Registrar,

¶25

O/o. District Registrar,

¶26

Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶27

The Joint Sub-Registrar No. 2, Joint Sub-Registrar No. 2 office, Karaikudi,

¶28

Sivagangai District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.V.Manikandan, Advocate in SR No.66947

¶30

+1cc to the Spl.Govt.Pleader in SR No.67018

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.19236 of 2016 08.11.2016

¶32

akv

¶33

anr/ss2/ksm/24.01.2017/2p/5c

¶34

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

Al.Kannan v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al.Kannan 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

V. Pugalenthi, Vs the District Registrar

Ramsankar Vs State Thro the

M. Surendiran, Vs the Managing Director

Anaiyappan Vs the District Collector

P.Palanichamy, Vs the District Collector

P.Visvanathan Vs the Principal Secretary to