Disposed

R.Ganesan v. the District Registrar(Admin)

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WP(MD)/18570/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that since a criminal investigation for forgery/impersonation regarding the disputed sale deed was already advanced by the police, a civil enquiry by the District Registrar under Section 83 Registration Act was unnecessary. The Court directed entry in encumbrance certificate and further police investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd Respondent to make entry in encumbrance certificate disclosing pendency of criminal investigation and directed 4th Respondent (Police) to conclude investigation within 60 days and file ch

R.Ganesan Vs the District Registrar(Admin) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶7

and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13445, 13446, 13447 and 14958 of 2016

R.Ganesan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Registrar (Admn), In the Cadre of Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Madurai North, Madurai.

¶12

2.The Sub Registrar IV, Madurai, Palanganatham.

¶13

3.J.S.Krishnan

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.2684/B1/2016 dated 20.07.2016 and consequent impugned order of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2684/B1/2016 dated 22.07.2016

¶16

_________Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶19

quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein from in any way interfering with the title and ownership of the property pertaining to the sale executed by the 3^rd respondent in favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.654/2016, dated 21.04.2016.

¶20

For Petitioner	:	Mr.S.Ram Sundar Vijayraj for M/s.Veera Associates
For R1 & R2	:	Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader
For R3	:	Mr.M.Saravanan
For R4	:	Ms.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed challenging a notice issued by the

¶23

first respondent calling upon the petitioner to attend an enquiry by holding that there has been an impersonation by the petitioner. The show cause notice has been issued by invoking the powers under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶24

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the third

¶25

respondent herein had also filed a complaint before the fourth respondent

¶26

_________Page 2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶29

even as early as in the year 2016. A status report has been filed by the fourth respondent that an FIR in Crime No.407/2016 had been registered for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC on 21.07.2016. However, when the CD file was searched, the same was not traceable and therefore, a fresh CD file had been created and pursuant to the same, investigation has also been conducted by the fourth respondent. He would also indicate that the first accused in the said case had also sold various portions of the property to 72 persons and that all the 73 documents, including the document of which impersonation was alleged, have been obtained by the fourth respondent and particularly the document alleged to have been executed by the de facto complainant in favour of the accused viz., the petitioner herein had been sent for forensic examination and as and when the report is received from the forensic expert, a final report would be filed.

¶30

Section 83 of the Registration Act envisages that on a complaint

¶31

of a fraudulent registration by any of the parties by an aggrieved person, the District Registrar shall conduct an enquiry into such allegation and if

¶32

_________Page 3 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶35

it is found that fraud has been played in registering the document, a complaint relating to the said fraud shall be made by the District Registrar to the concerned police. An entry also is made in the Encumbrance Certificate with regard to the pendency of such prosecution.

¶36

In the present case, even before the enquiry could be concluded by the first respondent on the complaint made by the third respondent, the fourth respondent had commenced investigation and it is almost in the stage of completion leaving only the filing of the charge sheet. For the alleged impersonation, since already the criminal law had been set in motion by the petitioner, which had culminated into filing an FIR in Crime No.407/2016, there is no necessity for the District Registrar now again to conduct an enquiry into the said allegations. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that 72 sale transactions have been made pursuant to the alleged document, which has been registered by impersonation. If any further third party encumbrance is allowed to be created, it would unnecessarily involve right of gullible third parties.

¶37

_________Page 4 of 7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶40

In such view of the matter, the second respondent herein is directed to make an entry in the encumbrance certificate disclosing the pendency of criminal investigation. The fourth respondent is also directed to investigate the subsequent execution of 72 sale deeds as indicated in the status report filed by the fourth respondent before this Court and thereafter, proceed to complete the investigation within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also follow up with the forensic to submit a report at the earliest and endeavour to file a final report within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶41

With the aforesaid directions to the second and fourth respondents, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

10.12.2024

¶43

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

¶44

_________Page 5 of 7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶47

abr

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶51

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶52

abr

¶53

¶54

1.The District Registrar (Admn), In the Cadre of Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Madurai North, Madurai.

¶55

2.The Sub Registrar IV, Madurai, Palanganatham.

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.18570 of 2016

¶57

Dated: 10.12.2024

¶58

_________Page 7 of 7

¶59

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

R.Ganesan v. the District Registrar(Admin)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ganesan v. the District Registrar(Admin)

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

K.Natarajan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Rm Somasundaram Vs The Commissioner

Veeranathan Vs The General Information Officer /

M.Gnaniah(Died), Vs the Nagercoil Municipality

S.Vethamoorthy, Vs the District Collector

Premraj @ Ramachandran Vs the District Collector