The Inspector General of Registration Vs Kavitha

PRAYER Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order made in W.P.No.6181 of 2025 dated 04.03.2025.

¶22

For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader

¶23

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dinesh

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This review application has been filed to review the order passed in

¶26

W.P.No.6181 of 2020 dated 04.03.2025.

¶27

2.Heard Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing

¶28

on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.P.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing on

¶29

behalf of the respondents.

¶30

3.The review has been filed mainly on the ground that the process of

¶31

settlement was completed and it is now pending before the Committee

¶32

constituted in this regard and it will take some more time for the Committee to

¶33

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

¶34

3/7 REV.APLW No. 168 of 2025

¶35

submit their report. In the meantime, if registration of documents is permitted, it

¶36

will jeopardise the exercise that has now been undertaken by the Committee.

¶37

4.In the considered view of this Court, when the order was passed in the

¶38

writ petition, this Court had taken into consideration the above ground that was

¶39

raised on the side of the review petitioner. This Court took note of the fact that

¶40

in the year 2021, a Settlement Deed that was executed by the mother of the 1st

¶41

writ petitioner and which was entertained and registered by the Sub Registrar as

¶42

Document No.20966 of 2021. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot be prevented from registering the Sale Agreement in the year 2025. In other words,

¶43

the situation that was prevailing in the year 2021 when the document was registered, continued in the year 2025 also and in spite of the same, the earlier

¶44

document was registered and the later document is refused to be registered.

¶45

5.This Court does not find any error on the face of the order requiring

¶46

review of the order passed in the writ petition. This is a stand alone case where

¶47

the order was passed in the writ petition based on the earlier registration that

¶48

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

¶49

4/7

¶50

REV.APLW No. 168 of 2025

¶51

took place in the year 2021. Therefore, on the peculiar facts of this case, the

¶52

directions were issued in the writ petition. Hence, this order cannot be taken as a precedent in other cases and it cannot open flood gates to register the documents whenever presented before the concerned SRO. In order to safeguard the interest of the revenue, a fresh communication shall be sent to the concerned SRO not to entertain any documents for registration till the report is submitted by the Committee and a final decision is taken. The process is going on from the year 2017 onwards and ultimately, it has reached the Committee. Hence, there shall be a direction to the Government to complete the process and take a decision, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

6.This review application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶54

26-06-2025

¶55

(1/2)

¶56

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶57

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

¶58

5/7