The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of registration orders and direction to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 83 of the Registration Act against non-appearing respondents, following a previous order in a similar case.
Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach Civil Court for cancellation of documents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.No.14730 of 2005
and WP.MP.No.16075 of 2005
C.Pushpam Ammal ..Petitioner
Vs
2.The Sub Registrar, Chokkikulam Sub Registrar's Office, P.T.Rajan Road, Madurai 2.
4.Devadoss ..Respondents
Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders of the I respondent made in his proceedings in A.T.M.U.No.40116/3/04, dt.05.08.2004 and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable, and direct the respondents I and II to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the respondents III and IV for the offences committed by them in accordance with Sec.83 of the Registration Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.Govindarajan
For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman,
G.A., for RR1 & 2 No Appearance, for RR3 & 4 - - - -
ORDER
Heard Mr.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Though the respondents 3 and 4 have been served and their names have been printed in the cause list, non appears from them.
A.T.M.U.No.40116/3/04, dated 05.08.2004 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the respondents 3 and 4 for the offences committed by them in accordance with Section 83 of the Registration Act.
similar Writ Petition in W.P.No.15111 of 2005, this Court by an order dated 16.03.2012, has held that under the Registration Act, the first respondent therein has no power to cancel the documents, which were already registered. However, the first respondent therein was given liberty to take criminal action against the respondents 3 and 4, if they have committed any offence under the Registration Act.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Insp.Cell)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.52852
W.P.No.14730 of 2005
VBA (CO)
RRS(06/08/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should quash the orders of the I Respondent and direct initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 83 of the Registration Act against the last two Respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.15111 of 2005Referred¶22
W.P.No.15111 of 2005
3 provisions across 3 enactments
C. Pushpam Ammal
Inspector General of Registration
Sub Registrar, Chokkikulam
J. Ravichandran @ Anaikutty
Devadoss
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
