Allowed

M/S.Nsl (Sez) Chennai Private v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC27 Sept 2022WP/15921/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a cancellation order of documents passed by the District Registrar under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The Court held that the impugned order became invalid upon the withdrawal of the underlying government circular and set aside the order, granting liberty to pursue remedies under Section 77A.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of cancellation was set aside. Liberty granted to file appropriate applications under Section 77A of the Registration Act before the District Registrar.

M/S.Nsl (Sez) Chennai Private Vs the Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.09.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.15921 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶6

M/s.NSL (SEZ) Chennai Private Limited A Company incoporated under Indian Companies Act having its registered office at NSL ICON, 4^th Floor, Road No.12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad – 34 .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Chennai

¶9

2.The District Registrar Chennai South Saidapet Chennai – 15

¶10

3.The Sub-Registrar Neelankarai, Chennai

¶11

4.P.N.Ramakrishnan (died) 5.R.Srinivasan

¶12

6.M/s.Mercury Enterprises Represented by the partners Mr.G.Anbumani and Mr.T.N.Surajudeen 23/10, Tiruveedian Street Gopalapuram

¶13

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

¶16

Chennai – 600 086 7.M/s.Alamelumangapuram and Ganapathi Syndicate Residential Plot Owners Welfare Association Shollinganallur Represented by its President T.Ashok Raj Jain Having office at No.8/2, Eighth Cross Street Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Chennai – 600 041 .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records related to the impugned order bearing No.377/B1/2012 dated 30.04.2012 issued by the District Registrar, Chennai South and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Radha Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader Mr.R.Rajesh for R5 Mr.S.Radhagopalan for R6 Mr.S.Muthukumar for R7

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is has been filed challenging the order bearing No.377/B1/2012 dated 30.04.2012 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the one of the private respondent made a complaint before the second respondent in terms of Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011

¶22

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

¶25

seeking to cancel the documents in Doc.Nos. 6725/2004 & 7034/2006. The second respondent summoned the petitioner and the other respondents on 15.06.2012. Pursuant to the summoning, the second respondent cancelled all the above documents under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Challenging the cancellation order of the second respondent, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011 was subsequently withdrawn on 20.10.2017. Based on the said circular, if any order is passed by the District Registrar, the said orders were subsequently cancelled vide order dated 06.04.2018. Hence, the impugned order which was passed based on the above circular, i.e., Circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011 is also withdrawn by the Government.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶28

Admittedly the facts of the present case are not in dispute. Since, the

¶29

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

¶32

complaint was made based on the Circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011, based on which the subject documents were cancelled and the said cancellation order is impugned herein. However, subsequently, the very circular itself was withdrawn by the Government on 20.10.2017, hence, the impugned order automatically becomes invalid and is no longer in existence. In view of the same, this Court sets aside the impugned order and further, grants liberty to the sixth respondent or any other aggrieved persons to work out their remedy by filing appropriate application/representation in terms of Section 77A of the Act before the second respondent. If any such application/representation is being filed, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order(s) on merits and in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing.

¶33

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

27.09.2022

¶35

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order dhk

¶36

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

dhk

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Chennai

¶43

2.The District Registrar Chennai South Saidapet Chennai – 15

¶44

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

¶45

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.15921 of 2012

27.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S.Nsl (Sez) Chennai Private v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Nsl (Sez) Chennai Private 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

Tmt. Santha, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Ravikumar Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Shamsia Amir @ Shamsia Vs The District Revenue Officer

V.Selvi, Vs The Land Commissioner

V.Palanivelu, Vs The Joint I Sub Registrar

C.Rosiah Vs The Special Tahsildar