Disposed

S.Amsha v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC13 Apr 2018WP(MD)/8070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged inaction regarding a representation submitted by the petitioner objecting to a further registration in a sale deed. The Court, without examining merits, directed the third respondent to consider the representation on its merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to third respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2018 on merits within four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order.

S.Amsha Vs the Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.8070 of 2018

¶6

S.Amsha : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam,

¶7

Chennai – 600 028.

¶8

2.The District Registrar, Madurai South, Y.Otthakadai,

¶9

Madurai District.

¶10

3.The Sub-Registrar – IV, Joint Sub Registrar Office, Madurai South, Y.Otthakadai, Madurai District. : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to make any further registration in pursuant to the Sale deed in Doc.No.1750 of 2014 dated 24.02.2014 on the file of the Sub Registrar – IV, Joint Sub Registrar Office, Madurai South, Y.Othakaddai, Madurai by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2018.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Yasmin Begum For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard M/s.P.Yasmin Begum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶16

3.It is the grievance of the petitioner that her representation dated 01.02.2018 to consider his plea and accept his objection in making further registration in the sale deed dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24.02.2014 has not been considered by the respondents till date and therefore, has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

¶18

4.This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or other. Non consideration of the same would amount to dereliction of their ordinary duties of their office and as such this Court would be justified in invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

¶19

5.In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2018 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶22

/True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, Madurai South, Y.Otthakadai, Madurai District. 3.The Sub-Registrar – IV, Joint Sub Registrar Office, Madurai South, Y.Otthakadai, Madurai District.

¶26

+1cc to M/s.P.Yasmin Begum, Advocate, SR.No.61145

¶27

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.8070 of 2018 13.04.2018

¶28

Myr

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ VB/JC/SAR 1/03.05.2018/2P/5C

S.Amsha v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Amsha 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

S.Surasangu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Tmt.K.Vasugi,W/O.Rathakrishnan Vs the Under Secretary to Govt.

Mrs.Indira Vs the Regional Lpg Manager

A.Kanagaraj, Vs the Tamil Nadu State

K.Mutharasu Vs the District Collector

M.Pawankumar Vs the Commissioner