Disposed

S.Saravanakumar, v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC9 Jun 2017WP(MD)/10665/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the second respondent must consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2017 regarding illegal registration, passed an order based on Circular No.67 within eight weeks, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within eight weeks.

S.Saravanakumar, Vs the Inspector General of — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10655 of 2017

¶7

S.Saravanakumar ...Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Chennai-28.

¶10

The District Register, District Registration Department, Tirunelveli.

¶11

The Sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, Thisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 09.02.2017 in the light of the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the 1^st respondent within time limit framed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan Special Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 09.02.2017 in the light of the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 issued by the 1^st respondent within time frame.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the properties in various survey numbers of Karaicuthuputhur, in Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, to the extent of 7.82 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acres of lands out of the total extent of 152 acres vide registered sale deed, dated 12.01.2009.

¶17

¶18

It is alleged that one of the co-owners, namely V.V.Minarals, who have right over 17.95 acres in the survey number have illegally obtained Patta for the entire property of 152 acres. So the petitioner initiated criminal proceedings against the owner of the company.

¶19

However, in the meanwhile the owner of the complany, colluding with the officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Thisayanvilai, has created thirty one release deeds. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the above said illegal registration, on 08.09.2015. It is further stated that many times the petitioner has approached the second respondent in person with the similar request and finally, on 09.02.2017 he sent the present representation. Since no action was taken, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶20

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

Considering the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.02.2017 and pass orders in the light of the Circular within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on merits and in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the necessary parties.

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Chennai-28.

¶29

The District Register,

¶30

District Registration Department, Tirunelveli.

¶31

The Sub-Registrar,

¶32

Registrar Office, Thisayanvilai,

¶33

Tirunelveli District.

¶34

+1cc to M/S. K.K.SAMY, Advocate, SR.No.59573.

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.10655 of 2017 09.06.2017

¶37

SDS/SV/SAR 1/09.06.2017/2P/5C

S.Saravanakumar, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Saravanakumar, v. the Inspector General of

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.Sekaram, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Seeni Selvaraj Vs the District Collector

Minor B.Minnal, Vs the Director

Jeyalakshmi Vs the Director of Town

The Tiruchi Fruits Traders Vs the Commissioner

M/Smaturity Materials Vs the Managing Director