Disposed

Arumugam N v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC20 Apr 2022WP(MD)/7475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an alleged wrong entry of a sale agreement in an encumbrance certificate. Court directed the District Registrar to consider the representation, afford a fair hearing, and pass final orders within twelve weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, afford a fair hearing, and pass final orders on merits within twelve weeks.

Arumugam N Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7475 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.04.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD)No.7475 of 2022

N.Arumugam

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

¶8

2.The District Registrar, Thiruchirapalli Registration District, Thiruchirapalli District.

¶9

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Srirangam, Thiruchirapalli District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to conduct through enquiry relating to the registration of Sale Agreement by one Balakrishnan on the file of the third respondent in document No.3197/2012 dated 02.11.2012 and to take action against the third respondent and further to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to direct the third respondent to remove the wrong entry in the encumbrance certificate dated 12.03.2020 within a time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For Respondents :Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader *****

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 21.03.2022 seeking for removal of the alleged wrong entry of agreement of sale, dated 02.11.2012 registered as Doc.No.3197/2012 made in the encumbrance certificate within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶14

2.According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property measuring 3444 sqft., comprised in S.No.1934, situated at Ward No.2, Block No.40, Thimmarayasamuthiram, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District. According to him, he purchased the same under a registered sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.7475 of 2022

¶17

deed, dated 03.11.2008 registered as Doc.No.3130/2008. However, according to him, without his knowledge, a sale agreement, dated 02.11.2012 bearing document No.3197/2012 is reflected in the encumbrance certificate. In such circumstances, he has given a representation on 21.03.2022 seeking for cancellation of the wrong entry. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶18

3.Heard Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

4.The petitioner has produced the copy of the sale deed, dated 03.11.2008 by which he became the absolute owner of the aforementioned property. He has also produced the copy of the registered sale agreement, dated 02.11.2012 for the very same property. According to him, without his knowledge, a wrong entry has been made in the encumbrance certificate, as if a sale agreement has been registered for the very same property on 02.11.2012. He seeks for removal of the wrong entry. He has given a representation on 21.03.2022 for the said purpose.

¶20

5.No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representation is considered on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting him the right of personal hearing.

¶21

6.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 21.03.2022 seeking for removal of the alleged wrong entry of agreement of sale, dated 02.11.2012 registered as Doc.No.3197/2012 made in the encumbrance certificate and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner and any other necessary party whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

7.With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

cmr

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.7475 of 2022

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

¶31

2.The District Registrar, Thiruchirapalli Registration District, Thiruchirapalli District.

¶32

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Srirangam, Thiruchirapalli District.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-20103[F] dated 21/04/2022 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.N. SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate ( SR-20170[F] dated 21/04/2022 )

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.7475 of 2022 20.04.2022

¶36

RK(02/05/2022) 3P 6C

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

3/3

Arumugam N v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam N 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

Gowri.M Vs the Dist. Collector

Durairaj A.C Vs the Tahsildar

Vettavarayan. P Vs the Commissioner

Muthupandi.P Vs The Tahsildar

Rajkapoor.T.a.S Vs the Secretary

Navaneetha Vs The Inspector General Of Registration