V.Sathyamoorthy, v. The Inspector General Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 28.04.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN V.Sathyamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 2

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Trichy

3. The District Registrar Registration Department, Combined Government Office Complex, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

4. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Registration Department, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District

5. Sanjeevi Sathyaseelan Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Registration Department, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District

...Respondents

1/5

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 24.05.2016 within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Premkumar for R1 to R4 Government Advocate Mr.C.Prabakaran for R5

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 24.05.2016 within a stipulated time.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of a house site situated in R.C.No.117/17, Vilandai Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District to the extent of 15 cents and when the petitioner decided to purchase the adjacent house sites, the petitioner enquired the 4th 2/5

respondent for payment in order to furnish E.C., the 4th respondent asked to enclose demand draft for Rs.2,261/-, however, DD was drawn only for Rs.2,100/- requested 24 hrs., to furnish the difference in the amount. Thereafter, the petitioner taken the demand draft for Rs.2,261/- and requested for the old demand draft, however, the same has not been handed over to the petitioner and when the same was questioned, the 4th respondent replied that the petitioner had not handed over the same. Thereafter, it came to light that the 4th and 5th respondents always demanded dowry from public, hence left with no other option, the petitioner has approached before this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that representation made by the petitioner on 24.05.2016 will be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed within a time to be fixed by this Court.

4. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 24.05.2016 and deal with the same strictly in 3/5

accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

28.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Order ssd

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 2

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Trichy

3. The District Registrar Registration Department, Combined Government Office Complex, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

4. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Registration Department, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District

5. Mr.Sanjeevi Sathyaseelan Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Registration Department, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District 4/5

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J., ssd 28.04.2023 5/5