Allowed

K. Vinayagam v. the District Registrar, (Admn)

Madras HC1 Dec 2020WP/18493/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a writ petition to quash an order setting aside a sale deed passed under a withdrawn circular. The administrative order dated 25.06.2012 was set aside, and the 3rd respondent was directed to seek cancellation of the document via a civil suit. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash the order dated 25.06.2012; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K. Vinayagam Vs the District Registrar, (Admn) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.12.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.18493 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012

¶6

K. Vinayagam ... Petitioner
v.
1.The District Registrar (Admn.),
(Assistant Inspector General Cadre)
North-Madras, George Town,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Sub Registrar,
(District Registrar Cadre),
Sembium, Chennai – 600 011.
3. K.B. Ashokan ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent's impugned order dated 25.06.2012 passed in proceedings No.2031/B1/2012 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 1^st respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry by supplying the copy of the complaint dated 28.01.2012 with supporting documents of the complaint of the 3^rd respondent by giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.

¶8

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 25.06.2012, to quash the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same and consequentially direct the 1^st respondent to conduct

¶9

fresh enquiry by supplying the copy of the complaint dated 28.01.2012 with supporting documents of the complaint of the 3^rd respondent by giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.

¶10

The 3^rd respondent has given a complaint dated 28.01.2012 to the 1^st respondent seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 15.04.2005 executed in favour of the petitioner. As per the provisions of Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, the 1^st respondent by its order dated 28.06.2012, set aside the sale deed dated 14.09.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition.

¶11

When the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, Mr. A. Gowthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Government had withdrawn Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 on 08.11.2017 and therefore, the order passed by the 1^st respondent should be set aside.

¶12

Mr. P.P. Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as Mr. N. Kamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that after the withdrawal of Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 , the order passed by the 1^st respondent should be set aside and the 3^rd respondent should approach the Civil Court seeking for cancellation of the document.

¶13

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, after the withdrawal of the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, the order dated 25.06.2012, passed by the 1^st respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside. It is open to the 3^rd respondent to file a Civil Suit seeking for cancellation of the document before the competent Civil Court.

¶14

With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶15

-sd- Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶16

True Copy

¶17

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶18

¶19

To 1.The District Registrar (Admn.), (Assistant Inspector General Cadre) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ North-Madras, George Town, Chennai – 600 001.

¶20

The Sub Registrar, (District Registrar Cadre), Sembium, Chennai – 600 011.

¶21

+2 CC to Mr.A.Gowthaman Advocate SR No.38536

¶22

W.P.No.18493 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012

¶23

SSI (CO) RRI 23/12/2020

¶24

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

K. Vinayagam v. the District Registrar, (Admn)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vinayagam v. the District Registrar, (Admn)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Selvarajan Vs The Commissioner

Tmt.K.Bhagavathi Sundari Vs The Government of

P. Lakshmi, W/O. Pandiyan, Vs The District Collector

J.Mahendran, Vs the District Registrar, (Admn)

P.Saravanan Vs the District Registrar, (Admn)

N.Geetha Vs the District Registrar (Admn)