← Library
Madras High CourtWP/43579/2025disposed of

Gunasundari v. The Tahsildar

2025-11-17Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

1. Gunasundari W/o. Dr.P. Thirunavukkarasu (Late) No.2/1128, 49th Street, TNHB, Korattur, Chennai- 6000 080.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Tahsildar Taluk Office Anna Salai, (Near Periyar Statue) Tiruvannamalai District 606 601 Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider my representation dated 13.09.2025. in accordance with law within a time frame fixed by this Honble Court and to pass appropriate orders for cancellation of patta No 1967 and for initiation of criminal action against the persons who forged NOC No.G1/791/2023, and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R. Hari For Respondent:

Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to deal with the representation made by the petitioner on 13.09.2025 wherein the petitioner has sought for the cancellation of patta issued

in Patta No.1967.

2.

Heard Mr.R.Hari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate for respondent. 3.

The main grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the rival party had used a fabricated Will and unlawfully claimed ownership over the property. Subsequently, the rival party was attempting to execute a Sale deed without considering the objections made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No.3086 of 2025 and this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 had directed the 3rd respondent to consider the protest petition before registering any document. However, in violation of the orders passed by this court, a Sale Deed came to be registered on 12.04.2025 in document No.5097 of 2025. The patta was also issued in Patta No.1967 in favour of third parties. 4.

The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in Cont P No.2216 of 2025 and this Court passed an order dated 12.08.2025 in the following terms:-

10. The above direction issued by this Court was not complied with and the Sub Registrar has come up with the plea that the concerned official became aware of the order only on 25.06.2025 after a copy was received. Even in the earlier order passed by this Court, it is made clear that the stand taken by the Sub Registrar is untenable for the simple reason that the Sub Registrar was represented by the learned Government Advocate when the writ petition was disposed of by this Court. Hence, it is presumed that the Sub Registrar was aware of the order in the writ petition. Two illegalities are apparent in the present case. First illegality is the No Objection Certificate that was relied upon for the purpose of registering DC lands, which was found to be a forged document as per the communication made by the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai to the Sub Registrar dated 28.07.2025. Therefore, the property could not have been dealt with and registered by the Sub Registrar. The second illegality is that the said registration has

taken place after the order passed in the writ petition, where this Court made it clear that no such registration should be done without considering the protest petition given by the petitioner. If registration has taken place, in the teeth of this order, the registration must be considered to be illegal and non-est.

11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the registration of the document done by the respondent in Document No.5097 of 2025 which was registered on 12.04.2025 after the order had been passed in the writ petition.

12. In the light of the above discussion, Document No.5097 of 2025 dated 12.04.2025 is hereby set aside. Relevant entry shall be made in the Encumbrance Certificate. The respondent is directed to call the concerned party for an enquiry and the objection made by the petitioner shall also be considered and thereafter, a decision shall be taken regarding registration of the document. This Court also finds that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. Considering the fact that the respondent is a woman officer and her age is 53 years, this Court does not want to impose any serious punishment of imprisonment. However, this Court is inclined to impose a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the contemnor payable on or before 26.08.2025. Either the respondent has to pay the fine amount from her own funds or the same can be deducted from her salary and be paid. The fine amount shall be deposited to the account of the Chief Justice Relief Fund.

5.

Pursuant to the above order passed by this Court, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 13.09.2025 to the respondent to cancel the patta issued. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials placed before this Court, there shall be a direction to the respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 13.09.2025 in line with the earlier order that was passed by this Court in the contempt petition and do the needful, within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

17-11-2025 rka Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Tahsildar Taluk Office Anna Salai, (Near Periyar Statue) Tiruvannamali District 606 601.

Chennai

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

rka 17-11-2025