Disposed

M.Rajendiran v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC5 Feb 2024WP/7295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider a representation dated 25.01.2016 to cancel a forged settlement deed following Circular No.67 of 2011. Due to the non-appearance of some respondents, the court directed the second respondent to issue notices to interested parties, conduct an enquiry within two months, and pass orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to notice relevant parties, conduct an enquiry within two months, and pass orders on the merits of the representation regarding the forged settlement deed.

M.Rajendiran Vs The Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

M.Rajendiran

... Petitioner

versus

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, (In the Cadre of A.I.G of Regn.,), Chennai Central, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Periyamet SRO, Periyamet, Chennai -3.

¶13

4.V.Premakumari

¶14

5.D.Elango .....Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to conduct enquiry with the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 and pass an order based

¶16

Pg.Nos.1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

¶19

on the written representation dated 25.01.2016 submitted by the petitioner within a specified time to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶21

No appearance for R4 and R5

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a mandamus directing the

¶24

second respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2016, in and by which, he sought to conduct enquiry and cancel the registration of the forged settlement deed registered as Doc.No.2342 of 2014, by following the procedure prescribed in Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent herein.

¶25

2.The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the representation has been made on 25.01.2016, till date the second respondent has not taken any action on the said representation.

¶26

Pg.Nos.2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

¶29

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶30

respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the representation of the petitioner would

¶31

be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

Despite service of notice, the fourth and fifth respondents have not

¶34

chosen to enter appearance either through a counsel or in person.

¶35

Since this writ petition is filed for a simple Mandamus to consider

¶36

the representation of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any view or opinion with regard to the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2016,

¶37

and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after

¶38

Pg.Nos.3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

¶41

issuing notice to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 herein as well as rival claimants/interested parties/objectors if any and after conducting enquiry, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the said representation has not been disposed of so far. In case final order has already been passed, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶42

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶43

shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

05.02.2024

¶45

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶46

¶47

Pg.Nos.4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

¶50

¶51

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.

¶52

2.The District Registrar, (In the Cadre of A.I.G of Regn.,), Chennai Central, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶53

3.The Sub Registrar, Periyamet SRO, Periyamet, Chennai -3.

¶54

Pg.Nos.5/6

¶55

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

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

W.P.No.7295 of 2017

05.02.2024

Pg.Nos.6/6

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

M.Rajendiran v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajendiran v. The Inspector General of

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

A.Chidambaram Vs the District Collector

Jaishankar Vs the Inspector General of Registration

S.Tamilselvan Vs S.Thangaraj

Arriya Vaisyar Community Vs The District Revenue Officer

R.Ramachandiran Vs the District Collector

Mrs. v.Nandini Vs the Special Commissioner