Shanmuga Sundaram. K v. The District Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.2877 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.3133 of 2019 K.Shanmuga Sundaram
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Chengalpattu District.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Achirapakkam, Kancheepuram District.
3. S.Chandrasekaran
4. R.Srinath
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to do any Registration with respect of the unsold Plots of the Kurinji Garden situated at Pazhavoor Village, Cheyyur Circle, Kancheepuram District comprised in survey numbers 170/1, 170/2, 172/5A, 172/5B, 172/5C and 173/6A till the 3rd respondent gives power to the petitioner with regard to the unsold plots.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.TM. Pappiah Special Government Pleader (Reg.) for R1 & R2
O R D E R
Mr.TM.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first and second respondents. By consent of the parties, this main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus, directing the first and second respondents not to do any Registration with respect of the unsold Plots of the Kurinji Garden situated at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Pazhavoor Village, Cheyyur Circle, Kancheepuram District comprised in survey numbers 170/1, 170/2, 172/5A, 172/5B, 172/5C and 173/6A till the 3rd respondent gives power to the petitioner with regard to the unsold plots.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court.
4. It appears that the petitioner claims some right over the property referred to in the writ petition against the third respondent and thus, it seems that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. If a dispute with regard to the right over the property exists between the parties, necessarily it has to be agitated before the appropriate Civil Forum and not by filing the present writ petition, that too, to prevent the Registration Department from registering the documents. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has given power to the fourth respondent,who in turn, is trying to sell the property.
5. This Court at this stage, is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the petitioner to agitate the same before the Civil Court. Therefore, I find that this Writ Petition is totally mis-conceived. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed, without expressing any view on the merits of matter, as it is for the petitioner to agitate such right before the competent Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sni To 1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Chengalpattu District.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Achirapakkam, Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.10837 W.P.No.2877 of 2019 SR(CO) rrs 27/02/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/