Allowed

Arumugam. M v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC19 Jul 2021WP(MD)/12180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Inspector General of Registration to conduct an inquiry into a complaint of fraudulent registration of a property document after giving opportunity to parties and passing final orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to conduct an inquiry based on the petitioner's complaint after affording opportunity to the petitioner and fifth respondent and pass final orders within six weeks.

Arumugam. M Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.12180 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.07.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD).No.12180 of 2021

M.Arumugam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome Road,Chennai.

¶10

The District Registrar, Registration Department, Dindigul.

¶11

The Sub-Registrar, Natham, Dindigul District.

¶12

The Sub-Registrar, Sendurai, Dindigul District.

¶13

5.M.Alagarsamy ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent conduct an inquiry and take appropriate action over the Doc.No.642/2020, dated 09.03.2020 was registered by 3^rd respondent consider my representation, dated 19.12.2020.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For R1 – R4 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to conduct an enquiry based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 19.12.2020.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that one Abdul Muthalif and Alagarsamy had conspired and created various documents and managed to include the property belonging to the petitioner also and the same was illegally entertained by the third respondent and it was also registered in Document No.642 of 2020. The further case of the petitioner is that the entire transaction is fraudulent and a complaint was also given to the second respondent in this regard. It is stated that these persons have indulged themselves regularly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in creating fraudulent transactions. It is further stated that the

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.12180 of 2021

¶21

above said Abdul Muthalif died in the year 2020. The complaint given by the petitioner before the second respondent did not evoke any response and left with no other alternative, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶22

Heard Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶23

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the complaint given by the petitioner on 19.12.2020 after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the fifth respondent and deal with the same on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass final orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

¶25

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No

¶26

costs.

¶27

Assistant Registrar (AD II)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

tsg

¶31

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department,

¶34

Santhome Road,Chennai.

¶35

The District Registrar, Registration Department, Dindigul.

¶36

The Sub-Registrar,

¶37

Natham,Dindigul District.

¶38

The Sub-Registrar,

¶39

Sendurai,Dindigul District.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.S.SIVAKUMAR, Advocate (SR-23267[F] dated 20/07/2021)

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.12180 of 2021

¶42

19.07.2021

¶43

RC (30.07.2021) 2P-6C

¶44

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

¶45

2/2

Arumugam. M v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam. M v. The Inspector General of Registration

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

Grama Munnettra Sangam, Vs the State Rep.by the Secretary

Mathina Vs K.Senthilraj

Narayanasamy Naicker Vs S.Raja Hussain

A. Sakthi @ Natarajan, Vs the Sub Registrar

Manikandan Vs the Commissioner

Rajeswari Vs the Commissioner