M/S.Anush Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Inspector General of Registration

¶1

WP No. 12829 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 12829 of 2026

¶7

M/s.Anush Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Director Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy, Having office at No.908 B, Radiance shine Apartments, Old Mahabalipuram road, kazhipattur, chennai - 603 103.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

Vs

¶10

The Inspector General of Registration, 100, santhome high road, R.A.Puram, chennai - 600 028.

¶11

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, 49/1A, GST Road, Alagesan Nagar, J C K Nagar, chengalpattu, Ammanambakkam, Tamilnadu - 603001.

¶12

The District Registrar, chengalpet District, Chengalpet - 603 001.

¶13

K.S.Subramaniyam

¶14

K.Muthukumar

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025 in relation to cancellation of entries made in the encumbrance certificate dated 13.11.2025 at the instructions of the first respondent by Sub-Registrar, Tiruporur, where the first respondent given findings as if a) The power of attorney executed by

¶17

Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 12829 of 2026

¶20

S.Kandaswamy in favour of Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy on 01.02.2005 and regd. as Doc. No.86/2005 to an extent of 6 acres not valid; b) Another power of attorney executed by S.Kandaswamy in favour Mr.Sukumar Reddy on 02.02.2005 and regd. As Doc. No.96/2005 to an extent of 2.18 cents not valid; and c) Sale deed executed by Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy as a power agent in favour of M/s.Anush Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 23.03.2006 and regd. as Doc. No.2703/2006 to an extent of 26.71 cents declaring not valid which are the subject matter of both suits in O.S.No.57/2022 and O.S.No.89/2023.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Subba Reddy For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Harish, GA for R1 to R3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a limited relief. According to

¶24

the petitioner, arbitrarily, in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 13.11.2025 for

¶25

the property morefully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ

¶26

petition, the following entries have been made by the first respondent:

¶27

a) The power of attorney executed by S.Kandaswamy in

¶28

favour of Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy on 01.02.2005 and regd. as

¶29

Doc. No.86/2005 to an extent of 6 acres not valid;

¶30

b) Another power of attorney executed by S.Kandaswamy in

¶31

favour Mr.Sukumar Reddy on 02.02.2005 and regd. as Doc.

¶32

No.96/2005 to an extent of 2.18 cents not valid; and

¶33

c) Sale deed executed by Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy as a power

¶34

Page2 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 12829 of 2026

¶37

agent in favour of M/s.Anush Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 23.03.2006 and regd. as Doc. No.2703/2006 to an extent of 26.71 cents declaring not valid which are the subject matter

¶38

of both suits in O.S.No.57/2022 and O.S.No.89/2023.

¶39

According to the petitioner, they are the absolute owner of the property morefully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. According to them, without any notice to them, the above mentioned entries have been reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 13.11.2025. In such circumstances, the petitioner had given a representation to the official respondents on 05.12.2025 requesting them to remove the aforesaid entries in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 13.11.2025. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶40

Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 4 and 5, notice to them in this writ petition is dispensed with by this Court.

¶41

No prejudice will be caused to the official respondents if the aforesaid representation of the petitioner is considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, this writ

¶42

Page3 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 12829 of 2026

¶45

petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025 seeking for cancellation of entries morefully disclosed in the said representation of the petitioner, after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, and after hearing the objections of all the necessary parties which includes the respondents 4 and 5, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. No Costs.

¶46

08-04-2026

¶47

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKM

¶48

To

¶49