K.S.Karthikeyan, v. The Inspector General Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI K.S.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar (Admin.), Salem District, Salem.

3.Saraswathy Victor 4.Selvadurai 5.Dairiyadurai ... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct enquiry and proceed further in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : M/s.R.Ezhilarasan For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader R4 and R5 - Tapal Return Insufficient Address 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry and to proceed further in accordance with law. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's neighbouring land owner/ third respondent executed settlement deeds in favour of her sons/ respondents 4 and 5, including her property and hence, the petitioner made representation/ complaint to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking to cancel the documents and to take action against respondents 3 to 5 and since there was no response, has filed this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased 51.5 cents of land from one Ganesan and Selvam vide document no.4750 of 2007 and the third respondent owned 60 cents of land, however, the third respondent executed two settlement deeds in favour of her sons for an extent of 62.5 cents each, including the petitioner's property. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation/ complaint and to pass appropriate orders, within a 2/4

reasonable time frame.

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased 51.5 cents of land from one Ganesan and Selvam vide document no.4750 of 2007 and the neighbouring land owner/ third respondent owned 60 cents of land, however, the third respondent executed two settlement deeds in favour of her sons for an extent of 62.5 cents each, including the petitioner's property. The dispute inbetween the petitioner and the third respondent is purely civil dispute, which can be ventilated only before the civil Court. Hence, the representation/ complaint made by the petitioner is mis - conceived. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate remedy. 5.With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

02.11.2022 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No M.DHANDAPANI,J.

3/4

pri To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar (Admin.), Salem District, Salem.

02.11.2022 4/4