Disposed

Vendhan Pl v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC1 Apr 2026WP(MD)/8775/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to initiate departmental action against a former Sub-Registrar for registering documents without verification and amid alleged impersonation. The Court held that initiating departmental action lies within the employer's domain and no enforceable right arises from a complaint, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue criminal or civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations; liberty granted to pursue criminal complaint or civil suit; no costs.

Vendhan Pl Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶7

P.L.Vendhan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶10

2.The District Registrar, Muthoorani Mudukku Santhu, Karaikudi, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Sub Registrar, Ponnamaravathi Sub Registration Office, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

4.Vignesh Pandiyan, Then SRO, Ponnamaravathy Sub Registration Office, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to conduct proper enquiry against the fourth respondent, by affording opportunity the petitioner and to take appropriate department

¶14

____________ Page No. 1 of 5_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶17

action against the fourth respondent, for his sheer negligence and dereliction of duties, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2026 within time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Azhagu Shivanandan

¶19

For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate departmental action against the fourth respondent for his sheer negligence and dereliction of duty, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, on consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 02.01.2026.

¶23

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2026, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent, who was then functioning as the Sub-Registrar, Ponnamaravathi SubRegistration Office, admitted and registered the documents as Document Nos. 592/2025, 3487/2025 and 3491/2025 without properly discharging

¶24

Page No. 2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶27

the obligation entrusted upon him to verify the correctness of the particulars in the documents presented.

¶28

It is further seen that the documents were admitted for registration without the production of parent documents or a non-traceable certificate, which, however, was not mandatory prior to the introduction of Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908. It is also stated that a Life Certificate was produced and that impersonation had taken place.

¶29

Upon considering the same, if any criminal offence such as impersonation, cheating or forgery is made out, it is open for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police and lodge a criminal complaint. If any further steps are required to be taken with reference to the documents, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court to declare the said documents as null and void or as the case may be, to ignore the documents and assert his title.

¶30

The present representation has been made seeking appropriate

¶31

departmental action. Once such a representation is made, it is for the higher authorities to consider the same and if any misconduct is made out,

¶32

Page No. 3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶35

to take a decision in that regard. It has been consistently held in repeated judgments of this Court that initiation of departmental action falls within the domain of the employer. Merely because a complaint has been given by the petitioner, he does not acquire a concomitant right to enforce, by way of a writ of mandamus, the initiation of departmental action.

¶36

In view thereof, the prayer in the Writ Petition cannot be

¶37

countenanced. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations, leaving the liberty open to the petitioner. No costs.

¶38

01.04.2026

¶39

JEN

¶40

Neutral Citation : No

¶41

¶42

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶43

2.The District Registrar, Muthoorani Mudukku Santhu, Karaikudi, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶44

3.The Sub Registrar, Ponnamaravathi Sub Registration Office, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

¶45

____________ Page No. 4 of 5_

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶48

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶49

JEN

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.8775 of 2026

¶51

01.04.2026

¶52

____________ Page No. 5 of 5_

¶53

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

Vendhan Pl v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vendhan Pl 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

K.Jayaveerapandian Vs The Regional Provident Commissioner

Tvl.Vel Associates Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Thirupathi Vs S.Saravanan IAS

Perumal. M Vs The District Collector

Sri Pavithra Agencies Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Gst Appeal)

A.Paranthaman Vs The Commissioner