Disposed

R.Sekar v. The District Registrar

Madras HC3 Apr 2023WP/10148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged failure of registrars to act on a representation alleging forgery of a sale deed. Court directed respondents to consider the representation under Section 77A within 12 weeks, dispensing with notice to the fourth respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2021 under Section 77A within 12 weeks.

R.Sekar Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

¶7

R. Sekar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Registrar, North Chennai, Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Registrar, Tiruvallur District.

¶11

3.The Sub-Registrar, Red Hills, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

4.K.L. Kiran ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein, to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 01.11.2021 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.05.2016 registered as document No.4170 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Redhills to and in favour of K.L. Kiran for having forged the document in respect of the property measuring 16.9 cents of land comprised in

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

¶17

Survey No.103/7, Chenrambakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District as per Section 77-A of the Registration Act.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.V. Kannan

¶19

For R1 to R3 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr.V. Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

2. Since this Court is directing the respondents 1 to 3, to consider the petitioner's representation, after giving due notice and opportunity to the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶24

3. The petitioner herein had given representation on 01.11.2021 to the first respondent, requesting him to take necessary action against some persons for having committed forgery and to secure his property from illegal hands. Subsequently, the first respondent has forwarded

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

¶28

the representation of the petitioner to the third respondent on 15.11.2021, for taking necessary action and on 29.11.2022, the second respondent has sent the letter to the third respondent, calling for the original documents. Since there was no further progress in the matter, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶29

4. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this

¶30

nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶31

5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction

¶32

to the respondents 1 to 3 herein, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2021, in accordance with the procedure

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

¶36

contemplated under Section 77A of the Registration Act, after giving due opportunity to the persons who had executed the sale deed, as well as the beneficiaries and the witnesses to the deed of conveyance and any other persons who may be interested in the subject property, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶37

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶38

03.04.2023

¶39

Speaking/Non-speaking Order Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶40

Sni

¶41

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

4/6

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

1.The District Registrar, North Chennai, Chennai.

¶46

2.The District Registrar, Tiruvallur District.

¶47

3.The Sub-Registrar, Red Hills, Tiruvallur District.

¶48

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

5/6

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH, J.

Sni

W.P.No.10148 of 2023

03.04.2023

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

R.Sekar v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sekar 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

G.Krishnavel Vs Shankar

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs The Special Deputy

K.Shankar Vs The District Registrar

T.S.Vasantha Vs The District Collector

Gomathi Ramachandran Vs The Special Tahsildhar

G.Krishnamurthy Iyar (Senior Citizen) Vs The Commissioner