A.Muruganantham v. The Inspector General Of

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.(MD)No.24018 of 2017 A.Muruganantham ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Collectorate, Dindigul.

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Collectorate, Dindigul.

4.Ayyer 5.Asaithambi 6.Muthaiyan 7.Murugan 8.Chidhambaram ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 herein to take appropriate action against the Respondents No.4 and 8 to cancel the five agreements vide Document No.1219/1999 dated 23.04.1999, Document No.181/2009 dated 12.01.2009, Document No.391/2009 dated 27.02.2009, Document No.8506/2011 dated 27.09.2011, Document No.1430/2013 dated 07.03.2013 comprised in Survey No.723/1, 724/2, 724/3 situated at Thoottanoothu Village, Dindigul District on the basis of the Circular Letter No.41530/A1/2017 dated 20.10.2017 issued by the first respondent, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader.

O R D E R

The petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the second respondent to cancel the five agreements said to have been executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the respondents 5 to 8. Though a representation was made by the petitioner before the second respondent, no order has been passed, hence, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3.The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to consider the representation made by the petitioner given to the second respondent in which the petitioner sought to cancel the sale agreements said to have been executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 on the ground that the fourth respondent has no right to execute the sale agreements. 4.The above representation has been given on the basis of the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011, but the above circular has been withdrawn by another Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, vide Circular No.41530/A1/2017 dated 20.10.2017. 5.

In view of the withdrawal of the earlier circular, the second respondent has no power to cancel the above documents. In the circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as per the new Circular dated 20.10.2017. 6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Collectorate, Dindigul.

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Collectorate, Dindigul.

+1cc to Mr.S.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr.No.40418 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.40096 MYR VB/SV/MMS/SAR4/11/01/2018/2P/6C W.P.(MD)No.24018 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 02.01.2018