Dismissed

E.Vasudevan v. The Collector

Madras HC8 Jul 2024WP/17838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging documents registered post-1933 against property rights. Court held allegations show third-party rights existed since 1942. Responding to claims, the judge ruled that registering authorities cannot conduct roving enquiries; proprietors must establish rights in civil court. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the writ petition for abuse of process law; no order as to costs.

E.Vasudevan Vs The Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.17838 of 2021

E.Vasudevan

... Petitioner

1.The Collector, Collector Office, Tiruvellore

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, JN Road, Tiruvellore

¶12

3.The Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road Mandavelipakkam, Chennai - 600 028

¶13

4.The District Registrar (Administration) North Chennai Zone, Kuralagam 1st Floor, Chennai - 600 108

¶14

5.The Sub Registrar

¶15

Sub Registrar Office, Arani - 601 101

¶16

6.The Superintendent of Police Land Grabbing Cell Thiruvellore

¶17

7.Mrs.Jayalakshmi

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1/6

¶20

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶21

8.Mrs.M.Suseela

¶22

9.A.T.Chandran 10.M.Manoharan Mudaliar 11.A.Mohanammal 12.A.Balaji 13.A.Kavitha 14.N.Jagadeesan

¶23

15.N.Sampath ... Respondents

¶24

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to conduct detailed enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondents 7 to 15.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ezhilraj

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.B.Vijay, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R3 to R5 Mr.S.Sugendran, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R6

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

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

¶29

_______ Page 2/6_

¶30

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶31

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 3 to 5

¶32

to conduct a detailed enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondents 7 to 15.

¶33

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that one Dhanappa Mudaliar has

¶34

purchased certain property on court auction sale in the year 1933. The said Dhanappa Mudaliar died in the year 1969 leaving behind the following legal heirs.

¶35

i) D.Ganesan (Died) S/o.Dhanappa Mudaliar ii) E.Kausalya @ Kamsammal (Died) W/o.Elumalai iii) V.Easwari Ammal (Died) W/o.Velayutha Mudaliar iv) N.Radha Bai, W/o.Neelakanda Mudaliar (Alive) v) M.Kamala (Died) W/o.Munusamy Mudaliar

¶36

Petitioner is one among the grandchildren of the said Dhanappa Mudaliar.

¶37

According to the petitioner, Dhanappa Mudaliar's legal heirs had not dealt with

¶38

the subject property at any point of time. However, certain documents have been registered. One Choolikan, Krishnan and Parthasarathy have encroached upon 20 cents and created document in the year 1942. Thereafter several

¶39

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

¶40

_______ Page 3/6_

¶41

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶42

documents have been executed. Hence, according to the petitioner, the authorities should conduct an enquiry and cancel all the documents.

¶43

3. The very writ petition itself is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶44

The petitioner seeks to cancel the document of the year 1942. The very allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition indicate that the third party right has been created from the year 1942 onwards. Therefore, merely on the basis that some court auction purchase, sale took place in the year 1933, now the petitioner cannot seek such a roving enquiry by the registering authorities. It is for the petitioner to establish any right, if any, in a competent civil court and not before the Sub Registrar. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

4. In fine, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to

¶46

costs.

¶47

08.07.2024

¶48

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr To

¶49

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

¶50

_______ Page 4/6_

¶51

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶52

1.The Collector, Collector Office, Tiruvellore

¶53

2.The Tahsildar, JN Road, Tiruvellore

¶54

3.The Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road Mandavelipakkam, Chennai - 600 028

¶55

4.The District Registrar (Administration) North Chennai Zone, Kuralagam 1st Floor, Chennai - 600 108

¶56

5.The Sub Registrar

¶57

Sub Registrar Office, Arani - 601 101

¶58

6.The Superintendent of Police Land Grabbing Cell Thiruvellore

¶59

7.The Government Pleader High Court, Madras

¶60

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶61

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

¶62

_______ Page 5/6_

¶63

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶64

Asr

¶65

W.P. No.17838 of 2021

¶66

08.07.2024

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _______ Page 6/6_

E.Vasudevan v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Vasudevan v. The 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

Gopinath Vs The Executive Engineer

N.Ayyaswamy Vs the Sub-Registrar

Sankar Narayanan Vs The Special Commissioner and

K.Arumugam Vs The District Registrar

S.Prasanthini Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Nandha Kumar Vs The District Collector