The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus for the cancellation of a fraudulent land transfer. The court held that since Circular No. 67 was withdrawn in 2018, the respondent lacked jurisdiction to act, directing the party to seek remedy in civil court.
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: 17.09.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.16484 of 2016
Muniyamma
...Petitioner
Vs.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2016 and dispose of the same in accordance with law and the Circular No.67 dated 03.01.2011 in C.No.52338/C1/2011 for cancellation of fraudulent transfer made in respect of land to an extent of 1.83.5 hectare in Survey No.869, Uddanapalli, Village, Hosur Taluk and Krishnagiri District within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman,
Government Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2016 and dispose of the same in accordance with law and the Circular No.67 dated 03.01.2011 for cancellation of fraudulent transfer made in respect of land to an extent of 1.83.5 hectare in Survey No.869, Uddanapalli, Village, Hosur Taluk and Krishnagiri District within a time frame.
2.Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Circular No.67 dated 03.01.2011 has already been withdrawn by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 2018 and therefore, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.
3.Since the Government had already withdrawn the Circular No.67 dated 03.01.2011 in the year 2018 itself, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel a registered document. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy before a Competent Civil Court seeking for cancellation of the registered document executed in favour of one Ramesh Bagrecha. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
W.P.No.16484 of 2016
rld(co) rv(25/9/2020)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 3rd respondent has jurisdiction to cancel a registered transfer of land pursuant to a withdrawn Circular No. 67 dated 03.01.2011.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muniyamma
The District Registrar, Krishnagiri District
M. Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
