Allowed

S.Bharath Kumar v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC18 Mar 2024WP/584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub Registrar refused registration of a sale deed citing TNHB's objection letter despite prior quashing of the Section 4(1) acquisition notification. The Court quashed the refusal check slip and directed registration within six weeks. Suspecting collusion by officials, it directed CBI to investigate and report within four months.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip quashed; Sub Registrar directed to register the sale deed within six weeks; CBI directed to investigate officials' collusion and report in four months.

S.Bharath Kumar Vs the Sub Registrar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.584 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.No.584 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.569 of 2024

S.Bharath Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub Registrar

¶11

Hosur, Krishnagiri District

¶12

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA, Building, E&C Market Road Koyambedu

¶13

Chennai - 600 107

¶14

The Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Hosur Housing Unit Hosur - 635 109 Krishnagiri District

¶15

The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Hosur Krishnagiri District ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip No.RFL/Hozur/143/2023 dated 16.12.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to

¶17

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P. No.584 of 2024

¶19

admit the execution, register the sale deed dated 22.11.2023 executed by the petitioner and release the document after registration within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For R1 and R4 : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal Government Advocate For R2 and R3 : Mr.S.Ramachandran Standing Counsel for TNHB

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip No.RFL/Hozur/143/2023 dated 16.12.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to admit the execution, register the sale deed dated 22.11.2023 executed by the petitioner and release the document after registration, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s land was acquired by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.04.1991 and the said notification was subsequently challenged in WP No.31591 of 2024 and this Court, by order dated 01.04.2016, quashed the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.04.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner has executed a sale deed dated

¶24

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P. No.584 of 2024

¶26

22.11.2023, in favour of one Mrs.Jothi Madeshwaran and presented the same before the 1^st respondent for registration on 16.12.2023, whereas, the 1^st respondent herein, refused to register the same and passed the impugned refusal check slip by citing the letter dated 23.03.2023, issued by the 3^rd respondent recommending not to register any document in favour of the subject land. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶27

When the matter came up before this Court on 13.03.2024, this Court had directed the respondents 1 and 3 to appear before this Court on 18.03.2024 and further, the 1st respondent was directed to produce the letter issued by the 3rd respondent who objected to register the document and the case was ordered to be listed on 18.03.2024.

¶28

Accordingly, today (18.03.2024), when the matter is taken up for hearing, the 3^rd respondent/Mr.A.Basker, Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, TNHB/Hosur Hosuing Unit, Hosur and the 1^st respondent/Ms.A.Shakila Begum, Sub registrar (i/c), Hosur, appeared before this Court.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

It is seen from the records that though the subject land was

¶31

subjected to acquisition by notification dated 30.04.1991, the 4(1)

¶32

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P. No.584 of 2024

¶34

notification dated 30.04.1991 was subsequently quashed by this Court in W.P.No.31591 of 2024 by order dated 01.04.2016 itself. Thereafter, the respondents have not filed any appeal or obtained any order of stay and they were simply quit. Thereafter, when the land owner sold the land to third party after six years and presented the sale deed for registration, the 1^st respondent has refused to register the same based on the letter issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

Once the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was quashed and the respondents have not filed any material to show that the order of this Court dated 01.04.2016 in WP No.31591 of 2024 is under challenge, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 1^st respondent, is unwarranted.

¶36

Therefore, the impugned refusal check slip No.RFL/Hozur/143/ 2023 dated 16.12.2023, issued by the 1^st respondent is hereby quashed. The 1^st respondent is directed to register the said document if the same is otherwise in order and if there is no other legal impediment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶38

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P. No.584 of 2024

¶40

Before parting with this case, it is to be noted that the according to the learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, the possession was already taken and the amount was also deposited, whereas, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was already quashed by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2016 in WP No.31591 of 2024 and till now, the respondents have not challenged the same by way of filing appeal and they are simply keep quit. Therefore, this Court suspects that the officials are colluded with the land owners and entered into conspiracy and thereby, allowing the land owners to get the benefit from the Court.

¶41

Hence, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Chennai is directed to register a case against the officials of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the requisition body as well as the acquisition body who are all in collusion and conduct investigation and file a report before this Court, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

18.03.2024

¶43

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ksa-2

¶44

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P. No.584 of 2024

¶46

¶47

The Sub Registrar Hosur, Krishnagiri District

¶48

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA, Building, E&C Market Road Koyambedu Chennai - 600 107

¶49

The Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Hosur Housing Unit Hosur - 635 109 Krishnagiri District

¶50

The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Hosur Krishnagiri District

¶51

Copy to

¶52

The Central Bureau of Investigation Chennai

¶53

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P. No.584 of 2024

P.VELMURUGAN. J.

Ksa-2

W.P.No.584 of 2024

and W.M.P.No.2709 of 2024

¶59

18.03.2024

¶60

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Bharath Kumar v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Bharath Kumar v. the Sub Registrar

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

S.Ranjankumar Vs the District Registrar

Krishnamoorthy Vs the District Collector

M.Gunasekaran Vs the District Collector

T.Jaganathan, Vs The Sub Registrar

S.Jhansi Rani, Vs the District Collector

Boovaragamoorthy Vs the Inspector General of Registration