Dismissed

Annaikutty v. the Principal Secretary and Commissioner

Madras HC14 Oct 2024WP/29585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing Land Administration officials to cancel a forged sale deed regarding his property. The Court held that with Section 77-A of the Registration Act struck down, there is no provision enabling cancellation of such documents by officials, thus dismissing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Liber

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the Civil Court.

Annaikutty Vs the Principal Secretary and Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.29585 of 2024 and WMP.No.32243 of 2024

Annaikutty

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶12

3.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Vandhavasi, Tiruvannamalai District.

5.G.Munusamy

6.Gunavathy ...

1/6

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

¶18

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

¶19

Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 4 herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2024 and conduct enquiry with reference to the petitioner's property situated at admeasuring extent of 0.49 cents in Patta No.401, property situated at Survey No.1194/4B and Survey No.1194/5B with an extent of 1.01 acres, situated in Maruthadu Village, Vandhavasi, Cheyaru Registration District, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaurudeen

¶22

For Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and

¶25

4 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2024.

¶26

2. It is the case of the petitioner that 0.49 cents of land in Patta

¶27

No.401, property situated at Survey No.1194/4B and Survey No.1194/5B

¶28

with an extent of 1.01 acres, situated in Maruthadu Village, Vandhavasi, Cheyaru Registration District, Tiruvannamalai District was originally assigned in favour of petitioner's father Govindhan.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

¶32

3. The petitioner's father executed a settlement deed in his favour in Document No.3051 of 2013 dated 02.12.2013. Thus the petitioner claims right over the said property. It is further stated by the petitioner that the 5 th respondent herein created a forged power deed, as if the petitioner executed a power in his favour and fraudulently sold the property in favour of the 6 th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.07.2024 before the respondent seeking cancellation of the forged sale deed and power deed etc., the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶34

that the petitioner has not executed any power deed in favour of 5th respondent and hence, the sale deed executed by him in favour of 6 th respondent is null and void.

¶35

5. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M .Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration reported

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

¶39

in Manu/TN/4032/2024 , Section 77-A of Registration Act, which enabled official respondents to cancel fraudulent document has been struck down and as on today there is no provision in Registration Act enabling official respondents to cancel registered documents assuming those document were forged or fraudulent.

¶40

6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However liberty is given to workout his remedy before Civil Court.+

¶41

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶42

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

14.10.2024

¶44

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ub

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

¶48

¶49

1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶50

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶51

3.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶52

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Vandhavasi, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.29585 of 2024

¶59

14.10.2024

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Annaikutty v. the Principal Secretary and Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annaikutty v. the Principal Secretary and Commissioner

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

Kausalya, Vs the Executive Engineer

N.Krishnasamaraj, Vs the Executive Engineer

N.Krishnasamaraj, Vs the Executive Engineer

mr.S.Perumal Vs the District Collector

S.Sathiyanathan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Aspen Park Infra Coimbatore Private Ltd., Vs Government of Tamil Nadu