Allowed

Sabarinathan .a.M v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC13 Oct 2023WP(MD)/9075/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a land owner challenging the unilateral reduction of his land value to zero by registration authorities. The court held that notice must be issued before such an action and allowed the petition directing the respondents to make necessary corrections.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to make necessary changes in the encumbrance certificate without delay.

Sabarinathan .a.M Vs The Deputy Inspector General of… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.9075 OF 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2022

¶7

A.M.Sabarinathan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

¶10

The District Registrar, Combined Registrar Office, Dindigul.

¶11

The Sub Registrar, Oddanchatram Sub Registrar Office, Oddanchatram, Dindigul.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

¶13

(R-4 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 05.07.2022)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take necessary steps and make necessary correction in encumbrance certificate for the survey No.425/3A6, Ambilikkai Village, Oddanchatram Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2022 within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

2 W.P.(MD)NO.9075 OF 2022

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Viji For Respondents: Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

The petitioner's father purchased the petition-mentioned land on 07.09.1998 vide document No.1565/1998 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul. He executed the settlement deed dated 21.02.2007 in favour of the petitioner (document No.372/2007). The petitioner's father was issued with patta. It was subsequently mutated in favour of the petitioner.

¶24

While so in the registration records, the land has been shown as zero value. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that the lands are “Panchami” lands and that they

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

3 W.P.(MD)NO.9075 OF 2022

¶29

were assigned in favour of one Murugan Mathari in the year 1991. According to him, “Panchami” land cannot be allotted subject to the matter of transactions or alienations. If that be so, I fail to understand as to how the petitioner's father was permitted to buy the property. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner's father as well as the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner are registered documents. When pattas were issued to the petitioner as well as to his father, without notice to them the property could not have been made valueless. The lands could not have been unilaterally converted into zero value lands. The action taken by the respondents is having an impact on the petitioner's civil rights.

¶30

The petitioner should have been put on notice. Since it was not done, I am constrained to interfere. This writ petition stands allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 will make necessary changes without any delay. Liberty is given to the respondents to take action as per law. No costs.

¶31

13.10.2023

¶32

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

¶33

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

4 W.P.(MD)NO.9075 OF 2022

¶37

PMU

¶38

To:

¶39

The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

¶40

The District Registrar, Combined Registrar Office, Dindigul.

¶41

The Sub Registrar, Oddanchatram Sub Registrar Office, Oddanchatram, Dindigul.

¶42

The Tahsildar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2022

¶44

13.10.2023

¶45

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

¶46

4/4

Sabarinathan .a.M v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabarinathan .a.M v. The Deputy 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

Thangakodi P Vs Deputy Inspector General of Registrartion Office

Maheswari Vs The Tahsildar

Rajendran.N Vs The Sub Registrar

Rukmani Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Rukmani Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Mahalingam Vs The Executive Engineer