Disposed

B.G.Manjula, v. The District Registrar

Madras HC2 Jan 2020WP/15802/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that High Court cannot direct registrars not to register correct documents but must enquire into representations seeking non-registration. Directs registrars to issue notice to parties and pass orders after applying natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Directs Respondent 2 to enquire into petitioners' representation, issue notice to all parties after applying natural justice, and pass orders. Fresh representation deadline: 23.01.2020.

B.G.Manjula, Vs The District Registrar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 02.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.15802 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.18779 of 2018

¶6

B.G.Manjula 2. B.Chandravarma 3. B.Samrat 4. Sowmya 5. K.Govindasamy

¶7

.. Petitioners ..Vs..

¶8

The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.

¶9

The Sub Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, HUDCO police Station, Krishnagiri District. 4. R.Ramakrishnan .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to register any documents on production by the 4th respondent in relating to Survey No.883/1 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District till the completion of criminal investigation in Cr.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the 3rd respondent.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, (for R1 and R2) Special Government Pleader Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi (for R3) Additional Government Pleader

¶13

1/3

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The matter has been pending for more than a year. Unfortunately, notice was not directed to the 4^th respondent. At any rate, since the present order does not prejudice the interest of the 4th respondent, I hold that it would not be appropriate to keep the writ petition pending no longer. Orders are passed in the main writ petition itself.

¶17

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents namely the District Registrar, Krishnagiri and the Sub Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District not to register any document on production by the 4^th respondent namely R.Ramakrishnan residing at 18, 19, 3rd main road, Eswari Garden, Hosur, Krishnagiri District with respect to the lands in Survey No.883/1, Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶18

The petitioners herein and the said 4^th respondent both are directly or rather indirectly related to each other. They have several legal disputes with respect to possession and title of lands and also with respect to proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., which is now being adjudicated by the Sub Collector, Krishnagiri District and also with respect to Crime No.10 of 2018 which had been stayed by the orders of this Court in Criminal Original proceedings.

¶19

Be that as it may, the Court cannot pass any direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent not to register any document, if the document is presented for registration is correct in all other respects. They also cannot deny registration. However, there is a duty cast to the 2^nd respondent to enquire into any representation received seeking the 2^nd respondent from not registering any document presented for registration.

¶20

It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an advocate notice was independently issued on 07.05.2018 to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, calling upon them not to register any document with respect to Survey No.883/1 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District in Patta No.58 measuring 2.37 acres in Nallur Village. It would be only in the interest of the parties that a fresh representation is given to the 2^nd respondent primarily and also to the 1^st respondent, if they think it necessary and all the factual details and the reason why any document if presented either by the 4^th respondent or through his agent should not be registered by the 2^nd respondent. If any document is then presented for registration, the 2^nd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners and

¶21

2/3

¶22

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

¶23

enquire all the parties by following the principles of natural justice and then pass recent orders.

¶24

The fresh representations of the petitioners shall be submitted before the 2^nd respondent, on or before 23.01.2020.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

vum

The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.

¶31

The Sub Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, HUDCO police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶33

+1 cc to Mr.R.Ezhilarasan Advocate sr155

¶34

+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr1341

¶35

W.P.No.15802 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.18779 of 2018

¶36

aa13/01/2020

¶37

3/3

¶38

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

B.G.Manjula, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.G.Manjula, v. The District 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

Lt Col Sasikumar(Retd) Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

P.Arivalagan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

V.B.Vignesh Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

V.Bharani Vs Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S

D.Mathaiyan, Vs The Senior Area Manager

M/s.Aspinwall & Company Ltd. Vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate