Dismissed¶21

S.Srinvasan v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC7 Aug 2025WP/28304/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guideline value fixation; release of sale deed dated 29.04.2025 (Document P.No.P26/2025); Sub Registrar Komangalam; District Registrar (Administration) Thiruppur; Inspector General of Registration Chennai; writ of mandamus under Article 226; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no costs; Madras High Court; Mohammed Shaffiq, J.; counsel S.Triambakeshwar; Government Advocate Abishek Murthy.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. ¶21

S.Srinvasan Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.28304 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 07.08.2025

¶4

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶5

W.P.No.28304 of 2025

S.Srinivasan

...Petitioner

Versus

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100 Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶10

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Thiruppur Registration District, Thiruppur – 641 602.

¶11

3.The Sub Registrar, Komangalam, Thiruppur District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to fix appropriate guide line value for the property purchased by the petitioner comprised in S.Nos.423/C1, 423/C2, 424/C2A, 424/C2B and 424/C2C bearing Plot No.25, Maruthi Avenue, Kongalnagaram Village, Udumalaipettai Taluk, Thiruppur District having an extent of 1,485.75 Sq.ft and consequently, direct the 3^rd respondent to release the Sale Deed dated 29.04.2025 bearing Document P.No.P26/2025.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.28304 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Triambakeshwar For Respondents : Mr.Abishek Murthy, Government Advocate

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned

¶20

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought by the petitioner has become infructuous and therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication.

¶21

2. Considering the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

07.08.2025

mrr

Index : Yes/No

Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.28304 of 2025

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100 Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶31

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Thiruppur Registration District, Thiruppur – 641 602.

¶32

3.The Sub Registrar, Komangalam, Thiruppur District.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.28304 of 2025

¶36

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

mrr

W.P.No.28304 of 2025

07.08.2025

4/4

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

S.Srinvasan v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Srinvasan v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Vs The District Collector

K.Mohan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Tehoplus Maduram Vs the Tasildhar

Arjunan Vs the District Collector

A.P.Selvam Vs The Government

Anandhi Vs the District Registrar