Allowed

Meena. K v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC27 Sept 2024WP(MD)/11816/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sale deed registration was refused for want of a fixed guideline value. Guideline value was later fixed; the land being private, the court quashed the refusal check slip and directed registration of the document within one week.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip quashed; Sub Registrar directed to register petitioner's sale deed within one week; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Meena. K Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11816 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11816 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10211 of 2023

K.Meena

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhom Highways Road, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Registrar (Registration), Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Nagalnayekkanpatti Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned communication issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 21.06.2022 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, pending fixation of guideline value with sufficient undertaking from the petitioner to pay the necessary stamp duties as arrived by the competent authorities to direct the 3^rd respondent to release the petitioner's sale deed, which is pending before the 3^rd respondent in document P.No.16/2022 in respect of the land in Survey

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.11816 of 2023

¶17

No.701/106A1 having extent of 62 cents situated at Balakrishnapuram Revenue Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenge has been made to the refusal check slip issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 21.06.2022.

¶21

2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that she along with others have jointly purchased a land in Survey No.701/106A1 to an extent of 62 cents situated at Balakrishnapuram Revenue Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District from one Padmanabhan. When it was presented for registration, the same was refused by the 3^rd respondent, vide refusal check slip dated 21.06.2022 on the ground that no guideline value has been fixed for the property in question. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶22

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 01.07.2024, the authorities fixed guideline value at Rs.100/- per sq.ft., in respect of the property in question.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.11816 of 2023

¶26

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the said submission. He, relying upon the communication of the 3^rd respondent dated 24.09.2024, would submit that the land in question has been sub-divided into various plots and several plots have been sold.

¶27

5.A perusal of the communication of the 3rd respondent dated 24.09.2024, indicates that the land in question is the private land, not Government land. Therefore, as the petitioner derived the title of the property, it cannot be said that the document cannot be registered. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the 3rd respondent is quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed, directing the 3rd respondent to register the document presented by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

27.09.2024

¶29

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶30

Yuva

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

W.P(MD)No.11816 of 2023

¶34

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶35

Yuva

¶36

¶37

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhom Highways Road, Chennai.

¶38

2.The District Registrar (Registration), Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶39

3.The Sub Registrar, Nagalnayekkanpatti Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul District.

¶40

W.P(MD)No.11816 of 2023

¶41

27.09.2024

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

Meena. K v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena. K v. The Inspector General of Registration

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

Vetrivel Vs The District Collector

Nathiya Vs The District Collector

M.D.Abish Rockey Vs The Vice Chancellor

P.Velaiammal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Ramesh Vs The District Registrar

P.Rajendran Vs The Sub Registrar