Disposed

R.Arularasan v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC21 Dec 2022WP/34125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Registrar to take action against a Sub-Registrar for alleged dereliction of duty. The Court directed the District Registrar to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it within eight weeks after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard. The petition was disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petition dated 16.03.2022 and decide after hearing both parties within eight weeks; petition disposed with this direction.

R.Arularasan Vs The Inspector General of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.34125 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.34125 of 2022

¶7

R.Arularasan

¶8

…. Petitioner

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

1.The Inspector General of Registration No.110, Santhome High Road Chennai 600 028.

¶11

2.The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar No.52, Orikkai Madhura Kancheepuram 631 502.

¶12

3.Tmt.Jegadeeswari The Sub-Registrar I/C, Joint-I Orikkai, Kancheepuram District-631 502.

¶13

…. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against Tmt.Jagadeeswari the Sub Registrar (I/C) Joint-I, Sub Registrar Office, Kancheepuram, the 3^rd respondent herein for dereliction of duty and caused loss to the Government Exchequer.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gnana Babu

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish

¶17

Additional Government Pleader – for RR 1&2 R3 – Notice dispensed with

¶18

1 / 4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.34125 of 2022

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against Tmt.Jagadeeswari the Sub Registrar (I/C) Joint-I, Sub Registrar Office, Kancheepuram, the 3^rd respondent herein for dereliction of duty and caused loss to the Government Exchequer.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that, the property in question belongs to the petitioner as he claimed that it has been entrusted to the petitioner by way of execution of will by the petitioner's great grandmother. When that being so, the grandmother of the petitioner one C.Sarojini had entrusted the property to one P.Alexander who was her car driver and despite the protest petition given by the petitioner, the said document was registered by the 3^rd respondent and therefore, in order to take action against the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has given a representation dated 16.03.2022 to the 2^nd respondent and in order to consider the same the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

¶24

Reiterating the aforesaid facts, Mr.T.Gnana Babu learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court.

¶25

Heard Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, who would submit that, if at all any petition has

¶26

2 / 4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.34125 of 2022

¶29

been filed dated 16.03.2022 by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent, the same shall be treated as complaint / petition within the meaning of Section 68(2) of the Registration Act as allegation has been made against the 3^rd respondent, after issuing notice to the 3^rd respondent as well as the petitioner that would be considered and decided by the 2^nd respondent within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶30

Considering the said submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, and in view of the order that is going to be passed in this writ petition by having dispensed with the notice to the 3^rd respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order.

¶31

“That there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the complaint / representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.03.2022 and decide the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within

¶32

a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶33

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶34

3 / 4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.34125 of 2022

¶37

KST

¶38

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

21.12.2022

¶41

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST

¶42

¶43

1.The Inspector General of Registration No.110, Santhome High Road Chennai 600 028.

¶44

2.The District Registrar Office of the District Registrar No.52, Orikkai Madhura Kancheepuram 631 502.

¶45

W.P.No. 34125 of 2022

¶46

4 / 4

¶47

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

R.Arularasan v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Arularasan 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

M.Sumathi Vs The District Revenue Officer

Arumugam Vs Thiru.Gunasekaran

G.Iniyan Kumar Vs The Managing Director

T.Agnalaa Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M.v.Nanjundappa Vs The Collector of Krishnagiri

E.Lakshmanan Vs District Collector