Annalakshmiammal v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.08.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Annalakshmiammal ... Petitioner versus

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The District Registrar, The District Collectorate Complex, Dindigul.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District.

5. Kandasamy

6. Ravichandran .... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the 1/5

records relating to the impugned letter vide Oo.Mu.No.7786/Aa3/2022 dated 16.12.2022 and to quash the same illegal consequently direct the 3rd respondent to cancel the sale deed Doc.No.2923/2011 dated 03.11.2011 and sale Deed Doc.No.2364/2022 for the properties situated in S.No.1500/1 and in S.No. 1500/2 of Ayyampalayam Village, Ayyampalayam Town Panchayat, Dindigul District made by the 5th and 6th respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar For R1 to R4 : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent in Oo.Mu.No.7786/Aa3/2022 dated 16.12.2022.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally, the subject property was the ancestral property and thereafter, she and her husband derived title over the property by way of a settlement deed dated 21.08.1949. But, the respondents 5 and 6, who are the sons of the petitioner, by creating forged documents and by giving false statements, have executed a sale deed in favour of one Tirupathi. Therefore, she gave a complaint before the 3rd respondent seeking to cancel the sale deed executed by the respondents 5 and 6. But, the 3rd respondent, by impugned proceedings dated 16.12.2022, rejected the request of the petitioner. 2/5

Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The Registering Authority has no power to cancel any registered documents, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 and also by this Court in G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others (W.P.No.29706 of 2022).

4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the 3rd respondent has rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

29.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No.

ogy 3/5

To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The District Registrar, The District Collectorate Complex, Dindigul.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District.

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

ogy 29.08.2024 5/5