Allowed

Gopinath v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC5 Jul 2024WP/3432/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to prevent registration authorities from insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board before registering his mortgage deed. Since the land acquisition proceedings had already been quashed by the High Court in 2018, and this was undisputed, the court allowed the writ petition and directed registration of documents if otherwise in order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gopinath Vs The Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

WP.No.3432 of 2023

Gopinath

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Salem Housing Unit Salem – 636 008

¶11

2.The District Registrar District Registrar Office Collector Office Complex, Salem

¶12

3.The Joint I Sub-Registrar Salem (West) District Registrar Office Collector Office Complex, Salem .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to insist No objection Certificate from the 1st respondent as a condition precedent for entertaining the mortgage deed or any other instrument that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Plot No.1, comprised in Old Survey No. 94/4, New Survey No.13/65, Ward No. F, Block No. 12 bearing Patta No. 447 measuring a total extent of 662 square feet situated in Mitta Ayyamperumampatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/6

¶15

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elumalai

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.C.Kalaiselvan for R1 Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu for R2 & R3 Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal

¶20

This writ petition is filed for a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to insist No objection Certificate from the 1st respondent as a condition precedent for entertaining the mortgage deed or any other instrument

¶21

that may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Plot No.1, comprised in Old Survey No. 94/4, New Survey No.13/65, Ward No. F, Block No. 12 bearing Patta No. 447 measuring a total extent of 662 square feet situated in Mitta Ayyamperumampatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶23

It is the case of the writ petitioner that he is the owner of the subject

¶24

lands and the first respondent proposed to acquire the subject lands for formation of Neighbourhood Scheme and issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Old Act vide G.O.Ms.No.755, Housing and Urban Development

¶25

Department, dated 04.09.1991 and issued Declaration under Section 6 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/6

¶27

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶28

Old Act vide G.O.Ms.No.608, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 03.08.1984.

¶29

5.The further case of the petitioner is that the predecessors in title challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.No.9566 of 1986 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 28.02.2018 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioner acquired the subject property by way of relinquishment. Thereafter, the petitioner approached a financer for availing loan and mortgage deed was sought to be registered, the respondents 2 and 3 refused to entertain on the ground that the No objection certificate has to be obtained from the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

¶30

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction or power to direct the second respondent to not to entertain any document and the same is contrary to the Registration Act as well as the Stamp Act. The second respondent is bound to follow the procedures contemplated under the Registration Act as well as the Stamp Act. Further, the acquisition proceedings itself was quashed by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶34

7.The learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent did not dispute the fact that the acquisition proceedings have already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2018 made in W.P.No.9566 of 1986.

¶35

Such view of the matter, since the acquisition proceedings is quashed, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to entertain the documents submitted for registration by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, if it is otherwise in order and register the same subject to payment of the stamp duty and registration fees. The document shall also be returned after duly registering the same.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶37

05.07.2024

¶38

dhk

¶39

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶40

To,

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶44

1.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Salem Housing Unit Salem – 636 008

¶45

2.The District Registrar District Registrar Office Collector Office Complex, Salem

¶46

3.The Joint I Sub-Registrar Salem (West) District Registrar Office Collector Office Complex, Salem

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶50

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶51

dhk

¶52

WP.No.3432 of 2023

¶53

05.07.2024

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

Gopinath v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gopinath v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Rukmani Vs the Tahsildar

C.Madhayyan Vs Mr.G.Aivoli and 3 others

Dasan (Died) 2. Kunju (Died) 3. K.B. Pushparaj Vs Kurusumuthunadar (Died) 2.P.SATYAM (Died) 3.C.DEVI(DIED) 4.ARULDASS(DIED) 5.LARA(DIED) 6.J.JEEVARAJ

Govindan @ Govindaraj Vs The Sub-Registrar

N.Ayyaswamy Vs the Sub-Registrar

Sankar Narayanan Vs The Special Commissioner and