Madras High CourtWP(MD)/16975/2016disposed of

S.Savarimuthu, v. The Inspector General Of

2017-12-21Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.12.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.(MD)No.16975 of 2016 and WMP(MD) Nos.12299 and 12300 of 2016 S.Savarimuthu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of registration, No.100, Santhome High Road Chennai - 28.

2. The District Registrar Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.M.Mariyasavai @ Raja 4.Santhiyagu Chettiar ... Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned order of the first respondent bearing No.34661/U1/15 dated 04.11.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry as per his own circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011 and to follow the judgement of this Hon'ble High Court reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 487 and (2014) 4 CTC 627.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, - for R1 & R2 Government Advocate *****

ORDER

This Writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 04.11.2015, issued by the first respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry as per his own circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011 and to follow the judgement of this Hon'ble High Court reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 487 and (2014) 4 CTC 627.

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

2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3. According to the petitioner, the property in question

is belongs to him. Whereas, some third parties, by creating forged documents and obtained patta in their name. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents, seeking cancellation of the said forged document. Based on which, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, which, according to the petitioner was not contemplated under Circular

67. As against the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner be considered by the second respondent, based on the modified circular dated 08.11.2017, within a reasonable time stipulated by this Court.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the subject matter, on merits and in accordance with law, in line with the modified circular dated 08.11.2017, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other interested parties, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

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

1. The Inspector General of registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.

2. The District Registrar Dindigul District, Dindigul.

+ 1 cc TO Mr.K.C.Ramalingam , Advocate in SR No. 91229 + 1 cc The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 91558 rm AE/SV MMS/SAR4/18.12.2017/2P/5C W.P(MD)No.16975 of 2016 06.12.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/