Disposed

T.Agnalaa v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC21 Dec 2022WP/34195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP.No.34195 of 2022, the Madras High Court directed the District Registrar to consider a petitioner's representation to delete incorrect encumbrance entries caused by a mistaken attachment proceeding against a different property, disposing of the writ petition within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Registrar to consider petitioner's representation for deletion of wrong encumbrance entries within four weeks.

T.Agnalaa Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.34195 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.34195 of 2022

¶7

Mrs. T.Agnalaa

¶8

Mrs.S.Umagowri

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,

¶12

Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶13

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, 6/1 GRD Road, Air Force Admin College, Red Fields, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶14

The District Registrar, 102, State Bank Road, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶15

The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office No.1, District Registrar Office, Coimbatore – 641 018. … Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.No.34195 of 2022

¶20

respondents particularly the first respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 16.05.2022 in respect of deletion of S.F.No.593/3/B4, 593/3/B6 and S.F.No.593/3A in respect of site No.17 and site No.14 in Kuruchi Village, Coimbatore and consequently delete the wrong entries from the encumbrance certificate.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nandakumar For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 16.05.2022 in respect of deletion of S.F.No.593/3/B4, 593/3/B6 and S.F.No.593/3A in respect of site No.17 and site No.14 in Kuruchi Village, Coimbatore and consequently delete the wrong entries from the encumbrance certificate.

¶24

The petitioner claims that they purchased the property at S.No.593, and subsequently sub-divided as 593/3/B4, 593/3/B6 and S.F.No.593/3A at Kuruchi Village, Coimbatore on 27.01.2012, since then

¶25

they have been in enjoyment of the property and the said purchase has an

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.No.34195 of 2022

¶29

encumbrance and it has been registered in the records of the Registrar

¶30

office concerned.

¶31

However, when the petitioners now attempt to make sale of the said property, they have found that the property has been attached by a Court proceedings and that encumbrance has been registered in the records. When they verified further, they came to know that the attachment has been made in respect of the property at S.No.571/B/1 at Kuruchi Village and not the property of the petitioner i.e., 593/3 and the extent also differs, therefore, it is a wrong entry made in respect of the property, therefore, in order to remove the wrong entry, the petitioners have moved the present writ petition.

¶32

Reiterating the aforesaid Mr.V.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court.

¶33

Heard Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government

¶34

Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, if at all it is a wrong entry according to the petitioner, based on which, the

¶35

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

¶36

3/6

¶37

W.P.No.34195 of 2022

¶38

petitioners have given representation on 16.05.2022, the same would be considered and decided by the third respondent District Registrar and the needful would be undertaken within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶39

Having regard to the said submission made by the learned

¶40

counsel appearing for the parties and having taken note of the said stand taken by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

¶41

That there shall be a direction to the third respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.05.2022 and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

It is made clear that since the said representation addressed to the second respondent, a copy of the said representation shall be annexed along with the copy of this order and be sent to the third respondent and on receipt of the same, the needful shall be

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

W.P.No.34195 of 2022

¶46

undertaken by the third respondent as indicated above.

¶47

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

¶48

21.12.2022

¶49

Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No

¶50

¶51

¶52

The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,

¶53

Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶54

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

¶55

6/1 GRD Road, Air Force Admin College, Red Fields, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶56

The District Registrar, 102, State Bank Road, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶57

The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office No.1, District Registrar Office, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶58

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

¶59

5/6

¶60

W.P.No.34195 of 2022

¶61

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶62

¶63

W.P.No.34195 of 2022

¶64

21.12.2022

¶65

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

¶66

6/6

T.Agnalaa v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Agnalaa 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

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

M.v.Nanjundappa Vs The Collector of Krishnagiri

R.Arularasan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

E.Lakshmanan Vs District Collector