Mr.Solai, v. The Inspector General Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.17399 of 2016 Mr.Solai ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 4.
2.The District Registrar Pudukottai Pudukottai District.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Annavassal, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
... Respondents Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2016 and initiate action in the light of the Circular No.67 dated 3.11.2011 issued by the first respondent herein within reasonable time.
For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 04.01.2016 to the second respondent praying for cancellation of the following documents alleging fabrication and fraudulent registration:
"1.Sale Deed registered as Document No.1581/1980 executed by M.Chidambaram Chettiyar's sons Viz., 1.M.Ct.Ramasamy Chettiyar, 2.M.Ct.Meenachi Chettiyar and 3.M.Ct.Annamalai Chettiyar in favour Ponnaiah Devar dated 10.12.1980.
2.Sale Deed registered as Document No.180 of 1989 dated 16.4.1989 executed by Ponnaiah Devar in favour of Palanivelu S/o Chidambaram Servai, residing at Pudukottai District, Koluthur taluk, Voylogam Village & Circle, Kanattanpatti.
3.Sale Deed registered as Document No.1893 of 2004 dated 2.12.2004 executed by Palanivelu in favour of Panner Mohammed.
4.Sale Deed registered as Document No.209 of 1993 dated 26.2.1993 executed by Ponnaiah Devar in favour of Murugaiah.
5.Sale Deed registered as Document No.225 of 2007 dated 20.2.2007 executed by Logammal & Karuppaiah (legal of heirs of Ponnaiah Devar) in favour of Solai ( not the complainant )."
and since no response is forthcoming, he has also submitted a representation dated 20.04.2016 to the first respondent for which also, he has not received any response and therefore, came forward to file this writ petition.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is absent. Heard the submissions of Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.Though the petitioner prayed for a larger relief, this Court in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the same, directs the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 04.01.2016 and 20.04.2016, in accordance with law, after putting on notice the persons concerned and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as the persons concerned.
4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 4.
2.The District Registrar Pudukottai Pudukottai District.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Annavassal, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr.38278 W.P.No.17399 of 2016 aa22/07/2016