Disposed

C.Kannan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC22 Dec 2022WP/34447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to the District Registrar to treat the petitioner's representations as a complaint under Section 77-A of the Registration Act and conduct an enquiry regarding fraudulently executed documents before the Sub Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to treat representations as a complaint, give notice to Petitioner and private Respondents 4 & 5, and pass orders within 8 weeks.

C.Kannan Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

C.Kannan

... Petitioner

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Integrated Building Complex, Kumaragiri by pass Road, Near Kailash Manasarover CBSE School, Near Udayapatty Power House, Ammapet, Salem – 636 014.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Dharmapuri – 636 701.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Marandahalli, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

4.S.Athmavarma

¶14

5.P.Muniraju ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass order on the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 with regard to cancel the General Power of Attorney dated 06.12.2021 and Sale deed dated 09.12.2021 executed fraudulently by the Respondents 4 and 5 by conducting enquiry in the light of Section 77(A) of the amendment of Registration Act 1908.

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing

¶22

the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 with regard to cancel the General Power of Attorney dated 06.12.2021 and Sale deed dated 09.12.2021 executed fraudulently by the Respondents 4 and 5 by conducting enquiry in the light of Section 77(A) of the amendment of Registration Act, 1908.

¶23

In order to cancel the Power of Attorney as well as the sale deed dated 06.12.2021 and 09.12.2021, which according to the petitioner, has been executed fraudulently by the 4^th and 5^th respondents, the petitioner had given representation on 16.11.2022 and 23.11.2022 to the respondents especially the 1^st and 2^nd respondents.

¶24

Following the same, by communication dated 21.11.2022 the 1^st

¶25

respondent has directed the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and send a report to the 1^st respondent.

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

¶29

At this juncture, in order to conduct an enquiry and to send a

¶30

report, the petitioner seeks direction by way of mandamus that is how this writ petition has come.

¶31

Heard Mr.P.M.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶32

The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1

¶33

to 3 would submit that, in the communication dated 21.11.2022 though the 1^st respondent has stated that the enquiry should be conducted by the 2^nd respondent under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, such enquiry may be conducted under Section 77-A of the Registration Act in view of the amendment having been made with effect from 16.08.2022 in the said Act and accordingly the 2^nd respondent since is empowered under the said provision can complete the enquiry and pass orders as to the veracity of the document which are in question, he contended.

¶34

In view of the order going to be passed in this writ petition,

¶35

notice to the 4^th and 5^th respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶36

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

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

¶39

Having regard to the said submission made by the learned

¶40

Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and having taken

¶41

note of the factual matrix projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

¶42

There shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to

¶43

entertain the two representations submitted by the petitioner in this regard as a complaint within the meaning of Section 77-A of the Act and accordingly conduct an enquiry by giving notice to both the petitioner as well as the private respondents herein and pass orders thereon on

¶44

merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight

¶45

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

¶46

With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶47

22.12.2022

¶48

Index : Yes/No

¶49

Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶50

Sgl

¶51

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

4/6

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Integrated Building Complex, Kumaragiri by pass Road, Near Kailash Manasarover CBSE School, Near Udayapatty Power House, Ammapet, Salem – 636 014.

¶56

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Dharmapuri – 636 701.

¶57

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Marandahalli, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶58

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

5/6

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.34447 of 2022

22.12.2022

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

¶66

6/6

C.Kannan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kannan v. The Deputy 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

T.Agnalaa Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M.v.Nanjundappa Vs The Collector of Krishnagiri

R.Arularasan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Karuppan Vs The Secretary to the Government

Karuppan Vs The Secretary to the Government

G.Shailaja Vs The District Collector