Allowed

Mokkasamy.S v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC19 Oct 2023WP(MD)/1658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an order passed on a 2017 registration circular regarding a 2014 document, holding that the circular cannot have retrospective effect. The petition was allowed on these specific terms.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.10.2021 is set aside as the 2017 circular cannot have retrospective effect on a 2014 document.

Mokkasamy.S Vs the Inspector General of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.1658 OF 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1658 of 2022 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.1452 of 2022

¶7

S.Mokkasamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector General of Registration,

¶10

O/o.Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

The District Registrar (Admin), O/o.District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶12

M.Iruliah ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with his impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.993/A3/2020 dated 27.10.2021 and quash the same insofar as the finding in respect of doc. No.1313 of 2014 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Batlagundu, Dindigul District and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

¶15

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader. * * *

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

2 W.P.(MD)NO.1658 OF 2022

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

The impugned order has been passed on the strength of the circular bearing No.41530/U1/2017 dated 08.11.2017 issued by the IG of Registration, Chennai. The said circular cannot have any retrospective effect. The document was executed only in the year 2014. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside.

¶22

I make it clear that merely because the impugned order has been set aside that would not mean that I have negatived the case of the third respondent. The contentions of the third respondent are left open. This writ petition stands allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

19.10.2023

¶24

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶25

PMU

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

3 W.P.(MD)NO.1658 OF 2022

¶29

To:

¶30

The Inspector General of Registration, O/o.Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶31

The District Registrar (Admin), O/o.District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

4 W.P.(MD)NO.1658 OF 2022

¶35

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶36

PMU

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.1658 of 2022

¶38

19.10.2023

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Mokkasamy.S v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mokkasamy.S v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Visuvasam Vs The District Collector

Shanmugasundaram.S.v. Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Pandi.N.S.a Vs The District Collector

Vanithai Vs Ponniah I.A.S.

P. Elavarasi Vs v.v.S.Gunanaji Raw

M/s. Sun Phoenix Newsprint Private Limited Vs The Inspector General of Registration