Vairamuthu Chettiar v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2519 & 21669 of 2022 Vairamuthu Chettiar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Karur District, Karur.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District.

3.Chellammal 4.Sakthivel 5.Murugesan 6.Raja @ Ponnusamy ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the 2nd 1/4

respondent on the petitioner objection petition No.9/2022 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate for R1 & R2 : no appearance for R4 to R6

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. The private respondents have been served. But they have not chosen to enter appearance.

2. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the second respondent and called upon him not to register any document in respect of the petition mentioned survey numbers. The petitioner's request was rejected by the second respondent. The second respondent called upon the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court for relief. It was made clear that the reasons set out in the petitioner's compliant are not sufficient for denying registration. Challenging the stand of the second respondent, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before UDR, the revenue record reflected the name of the petitioner. 2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate produced the copy of the revenue record and indicated that at present, the revenue record does not reflect the name of the petitioner. Therefore, if there is any UDR mistake, the petitioner has to move the District Revenue Officer and get the revenue record correct. So long as the revenue record does not reflect the name of the petitioner, the registering authority was justified in negativing the objection made by the petitioner. The petitioner is of-course at liberty to move the jurisdictional civil Court and obtain an order of injunction. The impugned order does not warrant interference.

5. With this liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

04.10.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi To 1.The District Registrar, Karur District, Karur.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District.

3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi 04.10.2023 4/4