Disposed

A.S.Thangamani v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC21 Jan 2019WP/13036/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a petition challenging government circulars mandating higher authority approval for property registration. The Court rejected the plea of illegality, noting the circular prevents bogus deeds, and directed the petitioner to approach competent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Petitioner at liberty to approach competent authorities.

A.S.Thangamani Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.01.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.13036 of 2004 & W.P.M.P.15219 of 2004

¶6

A.S.Thangamani ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowment Department,
Fort St.George, Madras – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Tuticorin.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Tuticorin, Keelur. ...
Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Mu.Ka.No.7295/2003 dated 27.11.2003 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ragavachari For Respondents : No appearance ( for R1) : Mr.G.B.Rajesh, Government Advocate (for R2) : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman Government Advocate (for R3) O R D E R

¶8

The instructions issued by the respondents pursuant to the government orders and as per the circular issued by the Director of Rural Development, Chennai dated 27.11.2003 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶9

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

¶10

The writ petitioner states that he is the power of attorney agent of Thiru.M.Dinakaravel. The power of attorney was executed on 10.02.2003, under the said power, the petitioner has been authorized to deal with the property on his principal located at Survey No. 95/4, Mapillai Oorani Village.

¶11

3.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the District Registrar, Thoothukudi on 05.12.2003 and proceedings of the Collector in 4/7295/2003 calls upons the Sub-Registrar not to register the documents unless it is supported by the concurrence of the Director Town and Country Planning or the Joint Director or the Deputy Director of the department.

¶12

4.It is further stated that the mere concurrence of the head of the local bodies are insufficient and documents should not be registered only on the basis of the certificate. This Court is of an opinion that the general circular was issued by the Director of Rural Development and subsequently by the District Collector to ensure that the documents are registered in accordance with law and further to avoid bogus execution of deeds by land grabbers and land mafias. The impugned order itself says that the conditions stipulated in the government order as well as in the Statutes are to be followed.

¶13

The purport of the order is that without the approval of the Director of Town Planning or the Joint Director or the Deputy Director, the Panchayat Presidents cannot grant approval unilaterally for the purpose of registration of a document. During the relevant point of time, the elected Panchayat Presidents had involved in various irregularities and identifying all such irregularities, Government issued circular that the registration or dealing with the properties cannot be done with the no objection certificate issued by the respective Panchayat Presidents unilaterally. The approval are to be granted by the competent authorities namely, the Director of Town Planning and the Joint Director or the Deputy Director concerned.

¶14

The circular was issued to ensure that the registrations are done in accordance with law and in genuine manner. This apart, the circular will prevent the execution of bogus documents and also to prevent the land grabbers to execute some documents in an illegal manner. Such a circular cannot be said to be illegal and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner is

¶15

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

¶16

bound to get necessary approvals from the competent authorities for the purpose of registration and as per the rules in force.

¶17

In this view of matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authorities by producing all the required documents and the necessary certificates in the manner known to law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kkn/ska
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowment Department,
Fort St.George, Madras – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Tuticorin.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Tuticorin, Keelur.
+1cc to Mr. V.Ragavachari, Advocate SR.No. 4091
+1 CC TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 5045
W.P.No.13036 of 2004
& W.P.M.P.15219 of 2004
A.SK(22/03/2019)

¶21

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

A.S.Thangamani v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.S.Thangamani v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Tamilnadu General Workers Union, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour II

Neyveli Lignite Corpn.Ltd., Re Vs 1.THE Secy., Edun.Dept., Govt.

M/S Balaji Forwarders Vs the Chief Commissioner of

P.Rajesh Vs The District Collector

Tirupur Sri Senthil Cotton Vs the Commissioner of Cental

B. Kesavan Vs Union of India, Rep by Its