Disposed

M.Chandra v. Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC19 Jan 2023WP/1066/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a cancellation deed order under Article 226. The court granted liberty to appeal to the State Government under Section 77-B(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, deeming the matter accordingly for statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the petition with liberty to file appeal under Section 77-B(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 within two weeks.

M.Chandra Vs Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

M.Chandra

... Petitioner

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Madavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Combined Registration Office Building, Veppamara Street, Velapadi, Vellore – 632 001.

¶12

3.The District Registrar (Administration) Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

4.The Sub Registrar, Joint – 2 Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

5.M.Arumugam

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 in No.928/Aa1/2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same

¶17

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶19

and consequently declare the Deed of Cancellation dated 29.12.1988 in Document No.3532/1988, on the file of Thiruvannamalai Joint II Sub Registrar Office executed by Arumuga Gounder and Poongavanammal as null and void and non-est in law.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayanand

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 in No.928/Aa1/2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently declare the Deed of Cancellation

¶24

dated 29.12.1988 in Document No.3532/1988, on the file of Thiruvannamalai Joint II Sub Registrar Office executed by Arumuga Gounder and Poongavanammal as null and void and non-est in law.

¶25

Though such a prayer has been sought for, Mr.S.Vijayanand,

¶26

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 has been passed by the 2^nd respondent under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as against which, appeal can be preferred under Section 77-B(2) of the said Act to the State

¶27

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶29

Government, therefore with the liberty to prefer such an appeal, this writ petition can be disposed.

¶30

Heard Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government

¶31

Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4. In view of the order going to be passed in

¶32

this writ petition, notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶33

Recording the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed, without going into the merits of the case as the petitioner wants to prefer appeal against the order impugned dated 28.06.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent before the State Government under Section 77-B(2) of the Registration Act, therefore

¶34

with that said liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

It is further made clear that, if the petitioner is able to file the appeal to the State Government within two weeks period from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained and decided by the State Government on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

¶36

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶38

The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to

¶39

the counsel on record after retaining the photocopy, with due acknowledgment.

¶40

19.01.2023

¶41

Index : Yes/No

¶42

Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶43

Note : Issue order copy on 20.01.2023

¶44

Sgl

¶45

¶46

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Madavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶47

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Combined Registration Office Building, Veppamara Street, Velapadi, Vellore – 632 001.

¶48

3.The District Registrar (Administration) Thiruvannamalai District.

¶49

4.The Sub Registrar, Joint – 2 Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶50

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.1066 of 2023

19.01.2023

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Chandra v. Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Chandra v. 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

A.Rajendran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

L.Seshamani Vs the Tahsildar

N.Devaraj Vs The Thasildar

R.Ravi Vs The Tahsildar

Madhumathi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K.Ponnusamy Vs The Inspector General of Registration