M.Rajendiran v. The Inspector General Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN M.Rajendiran ... Petitioner versus 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The District Registrar, (In the Cadre of A.I.G of Regn.,), Chennai Central, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.

3.The Sub Registrar, Periyamet SRO, Periyamet, Chennai -3.

4.V.Premakumari 5.D.Elango .....Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to conduct enquiry with the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 and pass an order based Pg.Nos.1/6

on the written representation dated 25.01.2016 submitted by the petitioner within a specified time to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Senthil Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 No appearance for R4 and R5

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a mandamus directing the second respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2016, in and by which, he sought to conduct enquiry and cancel the registration of the forged settlement deed registered as Doc.No.2342 of 2014, by following the procedure prescribed in Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent herein. 2.The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the representation has been made on 25.01.2016, till date the second respondent has not taken any action on the said representation. Pg.Nos.2/6

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

5. Despite service of notice, the fourth and fifth respondents have not chosen to enter appearance either through a counsel or in person.

6. Since this writ petition is filed for a simple Mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any view or opinion with regard to the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2016, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after Pg.Nos.3/6

issuing notice to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 herein as well as rival claimants/interested parties/objectors if any and after conducting enquiry, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the said representation has not been disposed of so far. In case final order has already been passed, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

05.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms Pg.Nos.4/6

To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The District Registrar, (In the Cadre of A.I.G of Regn.,), Chennai Central, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.

3.The Sub Registrar, Periyamet SRO, Periyamet, Chennai -3.

Pg.Nos.5/6

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms 05.02.2024 Pg.Nos.6/6