Disposed

A.Abdul Lathif v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC8 Jan 2020WP/1066/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras was approached via a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the District Registrar to enquire into alleged fraudulent land documents. The court directed the second respondent to conduct such an enquiry under the new circular dated 31.07.2018 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry into the alleged fraudulent documents within three months and forward the report to the petitioner.

A.Abdul Lathif Vs The Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :08.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.1066 of 2015

¶6

A.Abdul Lathif ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.

¶7

The District Registrar, O/o District Registrar Registration Department, North Chennai, Chennai-600 001.

¶8

The Joint Sub Registrar No.1, District Registrar's Office, North Chennai Chennai-600 001. 4. M.S.Kadar Hasan Maricar 5. O.Ameerudeen Maricar

¶9

O.Mahjabeen @ Syed Joharagani Nachial

¶10

Shameem @ K.Umma Hanima ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for an issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct an enquiry as per the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent to cancel the fraudulent documents 1.Settlement deed dated 15.06.2009 – Doc. No.171 of 2009, 2.Settlement deed dated 07.10.2009 – Doc. No.309 of 2009, 3.Settlement Deed dated 05.01.2010 – Doc. No.3 of 2010, 4.Sale deed dated 09.03.2011 – Doc. No.83 of 2011 registered on the file of the 3^rd respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2014.

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Manokaran

¶13

For Respondents:Mr.Mr.P.P.Purushothaman For R1 to R3 Government Advocate (Registration) No appearance - For R4 and R7

¶14

Not ready in Notice reg.R5, R6

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed for a mandamus to consider the representation dated 17.11.2014 seeking for a direction to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry as per the circular No. 67, dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent to cancel the fraudulent documents,

¶17

1.Settlement deed dated 15.06.2009 – Doc. No.171 of 2009, 2.Settlement deed dated 07.10.2009 – Doc. No.309 of 2009, 3.Settlement Deed dated 05.01.2010 – Doc. No.3 of 2010, and

¶18

4.Sale deed dated 09.03.2011 – Doc. No.63 of 2011 registered on the file of the 3^rd respondent.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid documents are fraudulent documents and the petitioner's signature has been impersonated. Therefore, he has given a representation to the second respondent dated 17.11.2014, requesting to conduct an enquiry relating to the aforementioned documents. Since the representation has not been considered, this writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate (Registration) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents 4 to 7.

¶21

It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Registration) for the respondents 1 to 3 that the circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the first respondent, has been repealed and in its place a new circular has been issued by the Office of the Inspector General of Registration, vide a letter No.41530/U1/2017, dated 31.07.2018.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied if the second respondent conducts an enquiry with regard to the above mentioned documents in accordance with the new circular referred to Supra. Accordingly, this court is also inclined to grant such an order. Accordingly, as no prejudice will be caused to any of the respondents, this Courts directs the second respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to the documents viz., 1.Settlement deed dated 15.06.2009 – Doc. No.171 of 2009,

¶23

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

¶24

2.Settlement deed dated 07.10.2009 – Doc. No.309 of 2009, 3.Settlement Deed dated 05.01.2010 – Doc. No.3 of 2010, and 4.Sale deed dated 09.03.2011 – Doc. No.63 of 2011, which are alleged to be fraudulent and complete the enquiry in accordance with the circular of the Inspector General of Registration, dated 31.07.2018 vide letter No.41530/U1/2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On completion of the enquiry, the second respondent shall also furnish the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.

¶25

It is also made clear that the second respondent shall conduct the enquiry by providing sufficient opportunities to the necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the representation made by the petitioner.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No cost.

¶27

Assistant Registrar

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.

¶32

The District Registrar, O/C District Registrar, Registration Department, North Chennai,

¶33

Chennai-600 001.

¶34

The Joint Sub Registrar No.1, District Registrar's Office, North Chennai Chennai-600 001.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate Sr.2172

¶36

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.2743

W.P.No.1066 of 2015

pm[co]

srg 13/02/2020

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

A.Abdul Lathif v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdul Lathif 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

V.K.Elangovan Vs the General Manager

Harshad Doshi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Rajalakshmi Vs the Director General of

Pootai Yeri Pasana Ayacut Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sri Vinayaga Enterprises, Vs The District Collector

N.Arjunan, Vs The Secretary