Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13178/2025dismissed

Adaikkan v. M/S. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Tnrera)

2025-08-08Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.13178 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.9417 of 2025 Adaikkan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. M/s. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA), Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Government, No.1A, 1st Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

2. The Director, Town and Country Planning Department, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, C and E Market Road, Koyembedu, Chennai 600 107.

3.The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

4. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

5. The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Karaikudi Registration District, Trichy Bye Pass Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

6. The Superintendent of Police Thirumayam Road, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District 622 001

7. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai

8. The Revenue Court (Sub Collector), Trichy.

9. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District 622 102

10. The Tahsildhar, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukkottai District 622 407

11. The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Ponnamaravathy Block, Pudukkottai District 622 407.

12. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office,Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukkottai District 622 407.

13. The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathy Police Station, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District.

14. The Assistant Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Ponnamaravathy Town, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District.

15. The Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Ponnamaravathy Town, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District.

16. The Panchayat President, Thoothur Village Panchayat, Ponnamaravathy Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

17. Rajasundaram

18. Muthupalaniappan

19. Subramaniam @ Subramanian

20. Sivakumar

21. Shasudeen

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 12th respondent / the Sub registrar of Ponnamaravathy in Na.Ka.No.6 of 2025 dated 20.03.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the 5th respondent / The District Registrar and 12th respondent / the Sub Registrar of Ponnamaravathy to cancel the sale deeds dated 01.03.2024 vide Document Nos.730 of 2024 and 731 of 2024 office at the Sub Registrar of Ponnamaravathy and sale deeds dated 22.03.2025 vide document Nos.1318 of 2025 and 1319 of 2025 in violation of the Sections 21 and 22 of the Registration Act 1908 and Rules 22 and 162 of the Registration rules within the stipulated time fixed by the Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajaraman For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar, Additional Government Pleader For R1 to R13 Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for R21 Mr.S.Deenadhayalan for R14 and 15

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the 12th respondent / the Sub registrar of Ponnamaravathy in Na.Ka.No.6 of 2025 dated 20.03.2025 and consequently, to direct the 5th respondent / The District Registrar and 12th respondent / the Sub Registrar of Ponnamaravathy to cancel the sale deeds dated 01.03.2024 vide Document Nos.730 of 2024 and 731 of 2024 office at the Sub Registrar of Ponnamaravathy and sale deeds dated 22.03.2025 vide document Nos.1318 of 2025 and 1319 of 2025 in violation of the Sections 21 and 22 of the Registration Act 1908 and Rules 22 and 162 of

the Registration rules within the stipulated time fixed by the Court.

2. The petitioner is claiming himself to be a cultivating tenant and he has also put up a house construction in 3 cents. The petitioner submitted that the original owners are the respondents 17 to 19, namely, Rajasundaram, Muthupalaniappan and Subramaniam @ Subramanian. The sons have sold the property to the 20th respondent Sivakumar. Subsequently, the said Sivakumar has sold the property to the 21st respondent Shamsudeen. In such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking that the impugned order ought to be quashed and the sale deed ought to be set aside. In order to set aside the sale deed, the competent forum is only the Civil Court and the official respondents cannot cancel the sale deed. Moreover, there is no allegation of fraud or forgery in the present case. Therefore, even Section 83 cannot be invoked by the Registration Department.

3.At this juncture, it is submitted that the 21st respondent has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.95 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumayam. Further, the petitioner and the 21st respondent have invoked the Revenue Court in A.P.Nos.1 and 6 of 2025. The said statements are recorded. The parties are at liberty to adjudicate in the said Civil Suit or Revenue Court.

4.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes Tmg

To:

1.Principal Secretary to the Government, No.1A, 1st Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.