Disposed

K.Jeyaraman, v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC18 Oct 2019WP(MD)/6066/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of four writ petitions challenging the release of property documents. The Court directed the Sub Registrar to seek inputs from the Tahsildar, receive clarifications, and then decide a pending representation on merits within twelve weeks, without expressing views on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Sub Registrar to seek inputs from Tahsildar within a fortnight, receive inputs, then dispose of a pending representation within eight or twelve weeks.

K.Jeyaraman, Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 and etc

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶4

W.P.(MD)Nos.6066 of 2014 and 20184, 20186 and 20188 of 2019

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 K.Jeyaraman ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. 2. T.Shankar 3. P.Thangaraj 4. T.Ravikumar 5. The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶6

(R.5 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 18.10.2019)

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent not to release of document relating to the property bearing S.F.No.112/18 corresponding to Natham S.F.No.113 new No.725/22 at Krishnarayapuram Village without testing the legality and genuiness of the document in the light of the Circular No.67 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and consider the representation dated 24.02.2014.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate for R.1 : Mr.S.Jayavel for R.2 to R.4 : Mr.K.MU.Muthu Additional Government Pleader for R.5

¶9

W.P.(MD)No.20184 of 2019

¶10

Ravikumar ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

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

¶13

1/6

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 and etc

¶15

The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram Sub Registrar Office, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶17

(R.2 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 18.10.2019)

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to deliver the sale deed No.P201400001 vide registration fees No.2014127 dated 29.01.2014 pertaining to Natham Survey No.112/18 in Krishnarayapuram North Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District within such time as may be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jeyavel For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate for R.1 : Mr.K.MU.Muthu Additional Government Pleader for R.2

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.20186 of 2019

¶21

Shanker ... Petitioner

¶22

Vs.

¶23

The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram Sub Registrar Office, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶24

The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶25

(R.2 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 18.10.2019)

¶26

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to deliver the sale deed No.P201400002 vide registration fees No.20141128 dated 29.01.2014 pertaining to Ayan Survey No.112/18 in Krishnarayapuram North Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District within such time as may be stipulated by this Court.

¶27

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

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 and etc

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jeyavel For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate for R.1 : Mr.K.MU.Muthu Additional Government Pleader for R.2

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.20188 of 2019

¶32

P.Thangaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram Sub Registrar Office, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶33

2.The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. ... Respondents (R.2 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 18.10.2019)

¶34

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to deliver the sale deed No.P204400002 vide registration fees No.2014129 dated 29.01.2014 pertaining to Natham Survey No.113 in Krishnarayapuram North Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District within such time as may be stipulated by this Court.

¶35

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jeyavel For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate for R.1 : Mr.K.MU.Muthu Additional Government Pleader for R.2

¶36

COMMON ORDER

¶37

This common order will dispose of these four writ petitions. For the sake of convenience and clarity, W.P.(MD)No.60644 of 2014, W.P.(MD)No.20184 of 2019, W.P.(MD)No.20186 of 2018 and W.P.(MD) No.20188 of 2019 shall be referred to as I Writ Petition, II Writ Petition, III Writ Petition and IV Writ Petition respectively based on numbers assigned to the writ petitions chronologically.

¶38

Subject matter of these four writ petitions is lands comprised in S.F.No.112/18 and Natham S.No.113 in Krishnarayapuram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

3/6

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 and etc

¶41

North Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said lands' for brevity, clarity and convenience.

¶42

This Court is informed by all the Counsel that Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District, being the jurisdictional Tahsildar is a necessary party and therefore for effective disposal, said jurisdictional Tahsildar is impleaded as respondent No.5 in I Writ Petition and respondent No.2 in II, III and IV Writ Petitions.

¶43

As between writ petitioner in I Writ Petition and writ petitioners in II, III and IV Writ Petitions, there are some contra contentions pertaining to S.F.No.112/18, but there is none of this kind with regard to S.No.113.

¶44

With the consent of aforesaid Counsel, main writ petitions are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of.

¶45

With regard to the contentions of writ petitioner in I Writ Petition, he has sent a representation dated 24.02.2014 ( hereinafter 'said representation' for brevity, clarity and convenience).

¶46

Said representation is the epicenter of these four writ petitions and if said representation is disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law, after putting on notice all the parties concerned and after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, it is likely to give a quietus to the controversies in these writ petitions.

¶47

With regard to said representation, Mr.M.Murugan, learned State Counsel representing jurisdictional Sub Registrar submitted that jurisdictional Sub Registrar has written to the jurisdictional Tahsildar seeking certain clarifications and inputs, but the same have not yet been received. It is also submitted by the State Counsel that the inputs / clarifications from jurisdictional Tahsildar is imperative for considering said representation on merits and disposing of the same in accordance with law.

¶48

It is in this context that the jurisdictional Tahsildar has now been impleaded as party respondent in each of these four writ petitions.

¶49

Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader has accepted notice on behalf of jurisdictional Tahsildar.

¶50

In I Writ Petition, there is a reference to Circular No.67 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and this Court is informed that the said Circular which was subject matter of challenge in this Court has since been withdrawn. Therefore, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question of applying Circular No.67 now does not arise.

¶51

4/6

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 and etc

¶53

In the light of narrative thus far, the following order is passed:

¶54

(a) The jurisdictional Sub Registrar ie., first respondent in all four writ petitions shall re-send a communication to the jurisdictional Tahsildar ie., respondent No.5 in I Writ Petition and respondent No.2 in II, III and IV Writ Petitions, setting out clearly the clarifications and inputs required. This shall be done within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶55

(b) Jurisdictional Tahsildar ie., respondent No.5 in I Writ Petition and respondent No.2 in II, III and IV Writ Petitions shall respond to the aforesaid communication, giving all clarifications and inputs within a fortnight therefrom;

¶56

(c) After receipt of clarifications / inputs from jurisdictional Tahsildar in the aforesaid manner, jurisdictional Sub Registrar shall take up the representation dated 24.02.2014 ie., said representation, consider the same on its own merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after putting on notice all concerned and after giving reasonable opportunity to all concerned. This exercise shall be completed by jurisdictional Sub Registrar within eight (8) weeks therefrom, or other words, within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which is by factoring in the two fortnight time frames in (a) and (b) supra;

¶57

(d)Jurisdictional Sub Registrar shall communicate the outcome of disposal of said representation to writ petitioners in these four writ petitions and all other parties concerned within seven (7) working days from the date of disposal;

¶58

(e) Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on merits of the matter. Therefore, jurisdictional Sub Registrar shall decide said representation on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.

¶59

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

¶60

5/6

¶61

W.P.(MD)No.6066 of 2014 and etc

¶62

All four Writ Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.

¶63

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶64

To 1. The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram Sub Registrar Office, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District. 2. The Tahsildar, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District. +1 CC to SPL GP SR-93572,93548,93550,93551 +1 CC to Mr.R.MURUGAPPAN, Advocate ( SR-93657[F] dated 22/10/2019 ) W.P.(MD)Nos.6066 of 2014 and 20184, 20186 and 20188 of 2019 18.10.2019 ssl MK (07.11.2019) 6P 5C

¶65

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

¶66

6/6

K.Jeyaraman, v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jeyaraman, v. the Sub Registrar

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

V.Raman, S/O. Vellaiyan, Vs the Tahsildar

A.v.Ramakrishnan Chettiar Sons Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

N.Maruthu Vs The District Collector

S. Mani, N.v.Nagar Vs the District Collector

R.Lakshmi Vs The Sub Registrar

Kanthasamy Vs The Sub Collector