Disposed

K.Kanniappan v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Feb 2023WP/4548/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Article 226 seeking writ of mandamus to cancel fraudulent sale registrations and restrain respondents from name changes in revenue records. Court stayed registration processes and directed District Registrar to enquire into representation within eight weeks after due hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish representation details; District Registrar directed to enquire into complaint on merits within eight weeks after due hearing; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Kanniappan Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.4548 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.4553 of 2023

K.Kanniappan

... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶12

3.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶13

4.The District Registrar, Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu.

¶14

5.The Sub Registrar Thiruporur, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 4 and

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

¶20

5 to cancel the fraudulent sale registered as Document No.18798 of 2022, 24895 of 2022 dated 27.08.2022 and 10.11.2022 respectively as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents 4 and 5 from registering any sale and forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from effecting any name change in the revenue records with respect to the property bearing survey No.61/11B (51 cents) and Survey No.61/15A (0.15 cents) bearing Door No.20, Othivakkam Village, Kumizhi Panchayat, Vandalur, Chengalpattu and to take necessary action to the representation given by the petitioner on 05.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and 23.11.2022 to the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Jayasree

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Muruganraja Government Advocate

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the

¶25

respondents 4 and 5 to cancel the fraudulent sale registered as Document No.18798 of 2022, 24895 of 2022 dated 27.08.2022 and 10.11.2022 respectively as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents 4 and 5 from registering any sale and forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from effecting any name change in the revenue records with respect to the property bearing Survey No.61/11B (51 cents) and Survey No.61/15A (0.15 cents) bearing Door No.20, Othivakkam Village, Kumizhi Panchayat, Vandalur, Chengalpattu and to take necessary action on the representation given by the petitioner on 05.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and 23.11.2022 to the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶26

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

¶28

The petitioner has given a complaint cum representation on

¶29

05.09.2022 to cancel the Document No.15306/2014 on the file of the 5^th respondent in respect of property at Survey No.61/11B (51 cents) and Survey No.61/15A (0.15 cents) situated at Othivakkam Village, Kumizhi Panchayat, Vandalur, Chengalpattu.

¶30

The said representation cum complaint was given within the meaning of Section 77-A of the Registration Act to the 4^th respondent District Registrar, therefore in order to enquire the matter and decide the same on merits within a time frame, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.P.Muruganraja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that, the said complaint cum representation given by the petitioner would be enquired into and decided by the 4^th respondent on merits and in

¶33

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

¶35

accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of being heard to

¶36

the petitioner/complainant as well as the persons against whom such complaint has been given.

¶37

Considering the said submissions made by the learned Government

¶38

Advocate for the respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

¶39

There shall be a direction to the 4^th respondent to

¶40

consider the complaint cum representation submitted by the

¶41

petitioner dated 05.09.2022 and after due enquiry by giving opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner as well as the rival parties orders shall be passed thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

16.02.2023

¶44

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶45

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

Sgl

1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶50

2.The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶51

3.The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶52

4.The District Registrar, Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu.

¶53

5.The Sub Registrar Thiruporur, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

¶54

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.4548 of 2023

16.02.2023

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

K.Kanniappan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kanniappan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Jayaraman Vs Revenue divisional Officer

Rajeswari Vs The District Collector

S.Kannan Vs The District Revenue officer

S.Govidarasu Vs The District Collector

A.Lakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Valluvar Gurukulam Vs State of TamilNadu