Remanded

James.a.P v. The District Registrar

Madras HC24 Nov 2023WP(MD)/8313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition filed to quash an order declaring a land transaction vitiated by fraud. The High Court set aside the order as it was passed without impleading the purchaser who had rights on record, remitting the matter for fresh enquiry hearing 15.12.2023.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted for fresh enquiry including the petitioner with hearing fixed for 15.12.2023 at 03.00 p.m.

James.a.P Vs The District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.6179 & 17655 of 2022

¶8

A.P.James ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Registrar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Thirupuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.Senthilkumar

¶13

4.Ganesan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order in Moo.Mu.No.1438/E1/2020 dated 06.05.2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2022

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.PRabhurajadurai For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan for R.3

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard both sides in full.

¶21

The petitioner had purchased 39 cents of land from the fourth respondent on 22.07.2020. On the next date, the third respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent that the transaction executed in favour of the writ petitioner’s vendor, namely, the fourth respondent is vitiated by fraud. The first respondent found merit in the third respondent’s complaint and passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2021. I do not want to go into the other contentious aspects. The impugned order is set aside only on the short ground that the petitioner was not made a party. When the first respondent was conducting an enquiry, the writ petitioner’s rights have already come on record. He had purchased 38 cents of land from the fourth respondent. He was also issued with patta. Therefore, passing the order behind the petitioner’s back is not in order.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2022

¶25

The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The

¶26

first respondent will hold the enquiry on 15.12.2023 at 03.00 p.m . The petitioner will not receive any further notice. The fourth respondent has not filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order. Thiru.John Kennedy has also not come before this Court. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside only in respect of 39 cents of land purchased by the petitioner on 22.03.2020. The first respondent will enquire the petitioner and the third respondent and pass a fresh order in respect of the document executed in favour of the writ petitioner by the fourth respondent. This shall be done by the first respondent within a period of six weeks after holding enquiry.

¶27

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

24.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2022

¶32

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶33

MGA

¶34

¶35

1.The District Registrar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶36

2.The Sub Registrar, Thirupuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶37

W.P(MD)No.8313 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6179 & 17655 of 2022

¶38

24.11.2023

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

James.a.P v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James.a.P v. The District Registrar

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

Muthukumar S Vs The Commercial Tax Officer / State Tax Officer

Siva Vijayakumar Vs Venkatachalam (Incharge)

The correspondent Vs Siva Vijayakumar

Nandha Gopal .S Vs The District Collector

Marisamy S Vs The Superintendent Engineer

P.Villayutham Vs The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies