Dismissed

S.R.Venkataraman v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC11 Oct 2022WP/21436/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Registrar to cancel bogus documents in terms of a withdrawn Circular No.67/2011. The Government Advocate submitted the circular was revoked in 2021. The Court dismissed the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The petition was dismissed due to the withdrawal of the underlying circular by the Registration department.

S.R.Venkataraman Vs the Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

1/4

¶2

W.P.No.21436/2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED :: 11-10-2022

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.21436 of 2013

S.R.Venkataraman

Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the IG of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome,

¶12

Chennai – 04.

¶13

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Office of the DRO, North Madras, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 01.

¶14

3.Paulraj

¶15

4.P.Helan Jothi Bai

¶16

5.P.Ramkumar

¶17

6.L.Kuberan

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's petition, dated 15.02.2013, and pass appropriate orders in terms of Circular 67/2011 passed by the first respondent and to take necessary steps to cancel the bogus documents created by the respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the petitioner's house property comprised in Survey No.36/2A2 of Oragadam Village, Kumaran Nagar, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai.

¶20

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

¶21

2/4

¶22

W.P.No.21436/2013

¶23

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan, Govt.Advocate.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

When this matter is taken up for hearing today, none appeared for the

¶26

petitioner to prosecute.

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's petition, dated 15.02.2013, and pass appropriate orders in terms of Circular 67/2011 passed by the first respondent and to take necessary steps to cancel the bogus documents created by the respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the petitioner's house property comprised in Survey No.36/2A2 of Oragadam Village, Kumaran Nagar, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai.

¶28

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the above Circular No.67/2011, dated 03.11.2011, was already withdrawn by an order of the first respondent, dated 09.07.2021.

¶29

In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

11-

10-2022

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

3/4

W.P.No.21436/2013

dixit

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the IG of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai – 04.

¶39

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Office of the DRO, North Madras, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 01.

¶40

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

4/4

W.P.No.21436/2013

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.

dixit

W.P.No.21436 of 2013

11-10-2022

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

S.R.Venkataraman v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R.Venkataraman 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Asha Benziger, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Mrs.v.Kalaivani, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation

M/S.v.G. Paper and Board Ltd. Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

K. Srinivasan Vs the Government of India

R.B.Saravanan Vs the Inspector General

A.Subramanian Vs the District Collector and