Dismissed

K.S.Varadaraj v. The Assistant Provident commissioner

Madras HC16 Aug 2023WP/10575/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Sub Registrar refusing registration of a property sale due to attachment under the EPF Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the attachment was valid and registration must be refused under Section 22-B of the Registration Act until the attachment is lifted.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Writ Petition and closure of connected Miscellaneous Petitions. No direction to register the sale certificate.

K.S.Varadaraj Vs The Assistant Provident commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.10508 & 10509 of 2023

K.S.Varadharaj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Provident Commissioner, Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, S1, TNHB, Phase III, Sathvachari, Vellore 632 009.

¶13

2.The Sub Registrar, Pallikonda.

¶14

3.Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan Liquidator, Flora Footwear Pvt. Ltd.,

¶15

DW3, Block No.1, Triumph Apartments, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Arumbakkam,

¶16

Chennai – 600 106.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 22.11.2021 of the 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.299/2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2 nd respondent herein to forth with register the sale certificate dated 30.10.2021

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶22

in respect of the properties of an extent of 0.04 acres in S.No.450/2, 0.07 acres in S.No.451/4, 0.62 acres in S.No.497/3B, 1.24 acres in S.No.499/2A, 0.76 acres in S.No.497/3C, 0.89 acres in S.No.497/3A, 1.32 acres in S.No.499/2B in Kizhachur Village Pallikonda, Vellore Taluk.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Palani Muthu For R1 : Mr.P.K.Paneer Selvam For R2 : Mr.G.Krishna Raja Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.T.Ravichandran

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The order dated 22.11.2021 issued by the Sub Registrar, Pallikonda is

¶26

under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶27

The petitioner presented a document for registration in respect of the

¶28

subject property belonging to him. The Sub Registrar returned the document along with the impugned order on the ground that the property was attached by the competent authority under The Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In respect of the attached property, the Registering Authority is empowered to refuse registration under Section 22-B

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶32

of the Registration Act.

¶33

In the present case, the subject property has been attached by the Employee’s Provident Fund Organisation in Number 9/2018 on 04.06.2018. The attachment made is in force as of now. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to deal with the property only after lifting of the attachment by the competent authorities.

¶34

The objections raised by the EPF authorities are recorded by the Sub Registrar concerned and there is no infirmity in respect of the order impugned. The documents falling under Section 52-A or 22-B of the Registration Act can be refused by the Registering Authority and in the present case, the subject property and the objections raised by the EPF Authorities are falling under Section 22-B of the Registration Act.

¶35

That being the factum, it is for the petitioner to initiate appropriate

¶36

steps to lift the attachment order by clearing the dues of the EPF Association and thereafter, deal with the property in the manner known to law.

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶40

6. With these observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

¶41

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶42

16.08.2023

¶43

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶44

¶45

1.The Assistant Provident Commissioner, Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, S1, TNHB, Phase III, Sathvachari, Vellore 632 009.

¶46

2.The Sub Registrar, Pallikonda.

¶47

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

¶48

Page 4 of 5

¶49

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶50

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶51

Jeni

¶52

W.P.No.10575 of 2023

¶53

16.08.2023

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

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

K.S.Varadaraj v. The Assistant Provident commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Varadaraj v. The Assistant Provident commissioner

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

Discharged Prisoners Vs District Collector

M/S.Titanium Equipment & Anode Vs the Divisional Engineer

K.Ganesan Vs The District Collector

A.Thangavelu Vs The Special District Revenue officer (Land Acquisition)

S.Arunachalam Vs The District Registrar

S.Diana Devi Vs The Inspector General of Registration