Disposed

S.Sarasu, W/O.Singamuthu v. the Deputy Inspector General

Madras HC20 Jun 2017WP(MD)/11081/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order, passed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226. The court directed the District Registrar to complete an enquiry into a sale deed within ten weeks, based on a Government Pleader's submission that an auction had already been initiated.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the respondent to complete the inquiry within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

S.Sarasu, W/O.Singamuthu Vs the Deputy Inspector General — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.06.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

W.P(MD) No.11081 of 2017

S.Sarasu

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

¶11

Office of the Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Department of Registration,

¶12

Othakadai, Tirumogur Road,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

The District Registrar,

¶15

Office of the District Registrar, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to cancel the sale deed, which is having registered document Number 2914 of 2014 and consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 23.05.2017 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Alagumani

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandham Additional Government Pleader

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to cancel the sale deed, which is having registered document Number 2914 of 2014 and consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 23.05.2017.

¶22

Heard M/s.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶23

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

¶24

Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government

¶25

¶26

Pleader, on instructions would submit that the second respondent had already initiated auction for an enquiry to be conducted as per circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and to issue notice to the respondents and the enquiry would be concluded in reasonable time.

¶27

In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the second respondent to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Department of Registration,

¶35

Othakadai, Tirumogur Road, Madurai.

¶36

The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Sivagangai District.

¶37

+1 cc to Mr.R.Alagumani , Advocate in SR.No. 61440

¶38

+1 cc to Mr.Special Government Pleader in SR.No.61473

¶39

sm/gsp

¶40

AE/KP/SAR1/30.06.2017/2P/5C

¶41

W.P(MD) No.11081 of 2017

¶42

20.06.2017

¶43

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

S.Sarasu, W/O.Singamuthu v. the Deputy Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sarasu, W/O.Singamuthu 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

S.Sudhakhar Vs the President, District

R.Senthil Kumar Vs Savio Cristo Nayagam

B Veeraraghavalu Vs Vikram Kapur

R.Josephin Rose, Vs the Chairman, Central Board

Ibrahim Sha Vs the District Revenue Officer

Ponnusamy, S/O.Kutralingam, Vs the Joint Commissioner