V.Kalaiselvi v. The District Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 14.12.2015 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.16997 of 2013 V.Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, Thiruvannamalai Registrar Office, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Joint Registrar No.2, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

3. The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Prevention Cell, Thiruvannamalai District.

4. T.Devendran ... Respondents Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to delete the entry made by the 4th respondent as D. No. 15372 of 2012 dt 26.12.2012 at the office of the 2nd respondent based on the findings of the 1st respondent dated 15.4.2013 in Na. Ka. No.399/Aa1/2012 and the 3rd respondent dated 9.4.2013 C.N.484 FBG/5P/2013 dt 5.1.2013 and C.N. 124/A L G S L/ USM/ 2013 dt 5.1.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Thilageswaran For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi Additional Government Pleader R4 : No appearance

O R D E R

It is seen from the records, that the matter has been adjourned from time to time at the request of respondent No.4. There was no representation on the earlier occasion on his behalf and the same is the case today. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass appropriate orders on merits.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to delete the entry made

by respondent No.4 at the office of respondent No.2 based upon the findings of respondents 1 and 3.

3. A perusal of the record would show that the investigation done by respondent No.3 and the findings in the enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 shows that fraud has been committed by respondent No.4. Thus, respondent No.1 in and by order dated 15.4.2013 has directed respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders to delete the entry. The writ petition mentioned in the said order is also disposed of as of now.

4. The order passed by respondent No.1 dated 15.4.2013 has not been put into challenge by respondent No.4. It also indicates that despite the notice having been sent to respondent No.4, he did not appear before the enquiry conducted by respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said order.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by directing respondent No.2 to delete the entry made by respondent No.4 as D.No.15372 of 2012 dated 26.12.2012 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar kua To

1. The District Registrar, Thiruvannamalai Registrar Office, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Joint Registrar No.2, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

3. The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Prevention Cell, Thiruvannamalai District.

1 cc to Mr.K. Thilagewaran, Advocate, Sr. 67727 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 67232 W.P.No.16997 of 2013 CA (CO) kk 4/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/