Allowed

R.v.Balaji v. The District Registrar

Madras HC20 Dec 2022WP/25658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking Certiorari and Mandamus, the petitioner challenged a refusal to register a Power of Attorney dated 03.06.2022. The court held that requiring the petitioner to obtain a Government Pleader's opinion for the authority was unreasonable and set aside the refusal order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal cheque slip was set aside and the second respondent was directed to register the Power of Attorney dated 03.06.2022 within two weeks.

R.v.Balaji Vs The District Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶7

R.V.Balaji .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Registrar Salem (West), Collectorate Salem – 636 001.

¶10

Joint Sub Registrar No.3 Office of the Joint Sub Registrar No.3 Salem (West), Collectorate Salem – 636 001. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Refusal No.RFL/No.3 Joint Sub Registrar, Salem East/19/2022, dated 16.08.2022, on the file of the second respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to register the Power of Attorney dated 03.06.2022, in accordance with the law and the procedure within the time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court and to pass further orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.Elizabeth Ravi For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

¶13

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

¶17

the records relating to the proceedings in Refusal No.RFL/No.3 Joint Sub Registrar, Salem East/19/2022, dated 16.08.2022, on the file of the second respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to register the Power of Attorney dated 03.06.2022, in accordance with the law and the procedure within the time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and to pass further orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

The petitioner had presented a Power of Attorney document dated 03.06.2022 to the second respondent for registration. However, the second respondent has given a refusal cheque slip where he has stated the following reasons:

¶19

cah;ePjp kd;w muR tHf;fwp"u; rl;lf; fUj;Jg; bgw;W kPs jhf;fy; bra;a Mtzk; jpUg;gLfpwJ/”

¶20

Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶23

Heard Mr.Elizabeth Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The said reason cited by the second respondent in the impugned refusal cheque slip is palpably wrong, because, no other reasons has been stated as to why the petitioner has been driven to go before the Government Pleader at the Madras High Court and get an opinion. Moreover, if at all any opinion has to be obtained by the Registering Authority, it is for him to get the opinion and satisfy himself, as to any legal doubt arose in the mind of the Registering Authority and for that purpose, the party, who presented the document cannot be religated to go before the Government Pleader to get an opinion and produce the same before the Registering Authority.

¶25

Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the said reason cannot be

¶26

sustained and accordingly, the impugned refusal cheque slip has to be interfered with. Hence, the following orders are passed in the present writ petition:

¶27

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶29

(i) That the impugned refusal cheque slip, with

¶30

their reason, is hereby set aside and as a sequel, there

¶31

shall be a direction to the second respondent to entertain the document viz., the Power Attorney dated 03.06.2022 from the petitioner and proceed to register the same, if it is otherwise in order.

¶32

(ii) The needful as indicated above shall be

¶33

undertaken by the second respondent within a period

¶34

of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no

order as to costs.

Index: Yes/No drm

20.12.2022

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶41

¶42

The Managing Director Tamil Nadir Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶43

The District Collector Tiruvallur District Collectorate Campus, Tiruvallur HO Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶44

The District Revenue Office Tiruvallur District Collectorate Campus, Tiruvallur HO Tiruvallur – 602 001.

¶45

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) TIDCO PetroChem Park Multi Modal Logistic Park Scheme(P) Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶46

The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶47

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

¶49

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

(drm)

W.P.No.25658 of 2022

20.12.2022

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.v.Balaji v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.v.Balaji v. The District Registrar

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

C.Ragupathy Vs The District Registrar

P.Sankaran Vs Shri Negarunnisa

B.Barackath Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M.Sumathi Vs The District Revenue Officer

Arumugam Vs Thiru.Gunasekaran

G.Iniyan Kumar Vs The Managing Director