Narayana Reddy v. Inspector General Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.14812 of 2016 Narayana Reddy ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.
2.The Additional Inspector General of Registration, Salem.
3.The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.
4.The Sub Registrar, Hosur Sub Registration Office, Hosur.
5.Chinnamma 6.Rajamma ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 2.4.2016 and pass order in accordance with law and also in view of Circular No.67 dated 3.11.2011 bearing C.No.52338/C1/2011 for cancellation of fraudulent transfer made in respect of the land to an extent 1.08 acres in Survey No.865/1 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District within the time to be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for R.1 to R.4
ORDER
The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the third respondent to consider his representation dated 2.4.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law and also in the light of Circular No.67 dated 3.11.2011 bearing C.No.52338/C1/2011 for cancellation of fraudulent transfer made in respect of the land measuring to an extent 1.08 acres in Survey No.865/1 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- (a) The lands measuring to an extent of 3.32 acres in Survey No.865 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, originally belonged to one Munireddy. The said Munireddy had sold an extent of 1.60 acres of land out of 3.32 acres in Survey No.865 in favour of the petitioner's father Annaiya @ Goopalli Reddy vide sale deed dated 15.4.1981 registered as document No.1417 of 1981. Subsequently, the said Munireddy had conveyed 1.60 acres in Survey No.865 in favour of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 18.3.1982 registered as document No.1023 of 1982. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner and his father are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties as absolute owners, by paying the necessary taxes.
(b) After the death of his father, the petitioner and his brother Pappi Reddy are in joint possession of the said properties. The revenue records have also been mutated in their favour and patta has also been given vide Patta No.961 in respect of Survey No.865/1 measuring to an extent of 98.50 acres (2.44 acres). Later, when they verified the encumbrance certificate relating to the said properties, they came to know that the respondents 5 and 6, who have no right, interest or title over the land in Survey No.865/1 of Nallur Village, fraudulently executed a settlement deed dated 7.1.2008 vide document No.215 of 2008 in favour of their sons Manohar Reddy and Murali Chandra Reddy in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 1.08 acres.
In fact, neither the petitioner nor his father conveyed any portion of the said land at any point of time in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 2.4.2016 to the respondents 1 to 4 requesting them to cancel the settlement deed dated 7.1.2008 on the ground that the parties to the said document have registered the same by furnishing false information. But, the said representation was not considered so far. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that as per Circular No.67 dated 3.11.2011 bearing C.No.52338/ C1/2011 issued by the first respondent, whenever a complaint regarding fraudulent registration is received, the same has to be forwarded to the third respondent and the third respondent shall conduct an enquiry by summary procedure and shall complete the same within a maximum period of two months. Despite the same, the respondents 3 and 4 have not chosen to institute any proceedings till date. Hence, he seeks a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation dated 2.4.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law and also in the light of Circular No.67 dated 3.11.2011 bearing C.No.52338/C1/2011 for cancellation of fraudulent transfer made in respect of the land measuring to an extent 1.08 acres in Survey No.865/1 of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
4. I have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, this Court directs the third respondent to conduct an enquiry on the representation made by the petitioner dated 2.4.2016, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondents 5 and 6 and other necessary parties, if any, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of Circular No.67 dated 3.11.2011 in C.No.52338/C1/2011, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the claim projected by the petitioner and it is for the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sbi
To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.
2.The Additional Inspector General of Registration, Salem.
3.The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.
4.The Sub Registrar, Hosur Sub Registration Office, Hosur.
+1cc to Mr.R. Bharath Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.25155 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.25437 RSY(CO) EU(31/05/2016) W.P.No.14812 of 2016