Manikandan v. Union Of India, Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.03.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN W.P.No.6213 of 2017 Manikandan .. Petitioner Vs.

1 Union of India rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2 The Member Secretary Town and Country Department Puducherry.

3 The District Registrar Registration Department Puducherry.

4 The Sub - Registrar Karaikal.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent from registering the conveyance/documents/deeds pertains to new or fresh plot sites/apartments without approval of the second respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vaikunth For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Harin Addl. Government Pleader (Puducherry)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Acting Chief Justice) Mr.K.R.Harin, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) takes notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent from registering the conveyance/documents/deeds pertains to new or fresh plot sites/apartments without approval of the second respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased a property in the year 2016. On 2.2.2017, the petitioner sent a representation to the third respondent to register his sale deed. However, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 22.2.2017, stated that the said property could not be registered for the reason that the same was not approved by the second respondent/Planning Authority. It is his plea that pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2017 passed in WMP.No.34766 of 2016 in W.P.No.40799 of 2016, the third respondent was refrained from registering any documents pertaining to properties which are not approved by the second respondent/Planning Authority and the same is causing undue hardship to the petitioner, as he is in dire need of funds to undergo heart surgery. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that he purchased the property before ban was imposed by this Court and, therefore, his case may be considered favourably considering the fact that he needs funds for heart surgery.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the competent authority setting out the above said facts and on such representation being made, the competent authority shall consider as to whether the stay order passed by this Court will come in the way of the petitioner or not and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.6706 of 2017 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sasi

To:

1 The Chief Secretary to Government Union of India Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2 The Member Secretary Town and Country Department Puducherry.

3 The District Registrar Registration Department Puducherry.

4 The Sub - Registrar Karaikal.

W.P.No.6213 of 2017 CA(CO) EU 5.4.17