Allowed

S.Vanniaraj v. Secretary to Government

Madras HC19 Jul 2019WP/14131/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a circular requiring a no objection certificate for document registration. Citing a prior judgment that quashed a similar circular, the court held the petitioners entitled to succeed and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed; the circular was quashed and the petitioners were directed to receive and register the documents.

S.Vanniaraj Vs Secretary to Government — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.14131 of 2004 and WP.MP.No.16682 of 2004

¶6

S.Vanniaraj
2. B.Antony Xavier
3. Udaiyammal ..Petitioners
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶7

2.The Collector of Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road, Santhome,
Chennai 600 004.

¶8

4.The Sub Registrar, Pudukkottai, Tuticorin Taluk and District. ..Respondents

¶9

Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the entire records of the 2nd respondent made in order No.Mu.Ka.Vu.Ni.4/7295/2003, dated 27.11.2003 and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to receive and register the documents produced by the petitioners with respect to S.No.38/2, 40, 38/1, 38/3 and 41/1 measuring about 11 A - 60 cents at Maravan Madam Village, Tuticorin Taluk and District, within the Sub Registration District of Tuticorin Pudukottai, Tuticorin Taluk and District.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Maninarayanan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.I.Sathish, AGP, for RR1 & 2

¶12

Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, G.A., for R3

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

The petitioners have come forward with this Writ Petition to quash the circular issued by the second respondent in Mu.Ka.Vu.Ni.4/7295/2003, dated 27.11.2003, thereby, no objection certificate was sought for registration of document.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the circular impugned in this Writ Petition was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.7828 of 2004 on 06.03.2019 following the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 606 and the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 513.

¶19

In the light of the above fact, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-IV) //True Copy// pvs Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶21

2.The Collector of Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶22

3.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai 600 004.

¶23

4.The Sub Registrar, Pudukkottai, Tuticorin Taluk and District.

¶24

+1 cc to M/s.N.Maninarayanan, Advocate, S.R.No.62242 +1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.62349 W.P.No.14131 of 2004

¶25

SV(CO) SSM(28/08/2019)

¶26

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

S.Vanniaraj v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vanniaraj v. Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.G.Jayapathi, Correspondent Vs the Manager

Tmt.S.Rathinam Aged 45 Yrs, Vs the Secretary to Government

C.Ramachandran Vs the District Collector

George Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mr.G.Boopathy Vs the Special Commissioner and

Tmt.Alagammai Vs the Special Commissioner