Partly allowed

K.T.Srinivasan v. The District Registrar (Administration)

Madras HC10 Apr 2023WP/10879/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the District Registrar to consider a representation dated 25.03.2023 regarding the cancellation of a registered sale deed under Section 77A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act within twelve weeks, without expressing views on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed, booking a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation dated 25.03.2023 under Section 77A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act within twelve weeks.

K.T.Srinivasan Vs The District Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10879 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.4.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.10879 of 2023

K.T.Srinivasan

...Petitioner

1.The District Registrar (Administration), Office of the District Registrar, Salem East, Salem District.

¶11

2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Attur Town & Taluk, Salem District.

¶12

3.N.Somasundaram

¶13

4.P.Mani

¶14

5.P.Jothi

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2023 in light of Section 77-A of Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1908 and to cancel the sale deed dated 22.02.2023 registered as document No.1109 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶17

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.10879 of 2023

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajakumar

¶20

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader accepting notice for respondents 1 and 2. Since this Court is directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after giving due notice and opportunity to respondents 3 to 5, notice to them is hereby dispensed with.

¶23

The petitioner had given a representation dated 25.03.2023 to

¶24

the first respondent seeking for cancellation of a registered sale deed. Since the said representation has not yet been considered, the Writ Petition has been filed.

¶25

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

¶26

nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the official respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.10879 of 2023

¶30

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 Constitution of India and direct him to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶31

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2023 in accordance with the procedure 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 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.

¶32

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.10879 of 2023

M.S.RAMESH,J.

RS/hvk

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands ordered. No

¶37

costs.

¶38

10.4.2023

¶39

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

¶40

¶41

1.The District Registrar (Administration), Office of the District Registrar, Salem East, Salem District.

¶42

2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Attur Town & Taluk, Salem District.

¶43

W.P.No.10879 of 2023

¶44

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

K.T.Srinivasan v. The District Registrar (Administration)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Srinivasan v. The District Registrar (Administration)

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

Saravanan Vs The Sub Registrar

S.K.Balasundaram Vs The Tahsildar

M.Nirmala Vs Union of India

R.Mohala Vs Inspector General of Registration

N.Mohamed Mian Rowther Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Natarajan Vs The District Collector