T.Sankara Subbu v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2016 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Writ Petition (MD) No.17517 of 2016 T.Sankara Subbu .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, Office of District Registration Department, Tirunelveli District - 2.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Gangaikondan Sub-Registrar Office, Tirunelveli District.

3. V.A.Thangam .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2016 regarding the cancellation of the fraudulent sale Deed vide Document No.1432/1994, dated 16.12.94 and Document No.43/2003, dated 13.01.2003 registered by the 3rd Respondent in the petitioner land survey No.180/1 to an extent of 6.34 Acres; Survey No. 180/3 to an extent of 6.50 Acres and Survey No. 198/15 to an extent of 00.05 Cents at Thengalam Village, Manoor taluk, Tirunelveli District.

For petitioner ... Mr.D.Selvanayagam For R1 and R2 ... Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This is a writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 22.07.2016 alleging fraudulent execution of the sale deeds in respect of Document No.1432/1994, dated 16.12.94 and Document No.43/2003, dated 13.01.2003.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire lands in Survey Nos.180/1; 180/3 and 198/15 at Thenkalam Village, Manoor Taluk, Tirunelveli District, belonged to the petitioner's mother and thereafter, they belong to the petitioner.

3.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that while the third respondent has purchased some extent of the land, he has fraudulently annexed certain extent of properties, which belong to the petitioner also. In respect of the same, a complaint came to be registered in Crime No.280 of 2011 as against the third respondent. 3.2. Apart from initiating criminal proceedings, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal before the first respondent to cancel the illegal and fraudulent sale obtained by the third respondent. It is relevant to point out that Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the Inspector General of Registration Department, prescribe the procedure for dealing with the complaints, referring to fraudulent registration of sale, through impersonation or by production of false documents and ultimately, the said circular provides for the method of providing relief in case of fraudulent sale transaction.

3.3. Despite the representation, dated 22.07.2016, the first respondent has not taken any steps to cancel the illegal transaction. The grievance expressed is that, not even an enquiry notice has been sent to the petitioner as on date. It is a responsibility on the part of the first respondent to cancel the fraudulent transaction, but for reasons best known, the first respondent did not follow any of the procedure prescribed under Circular No.67. The first respondent is expected to complete the enquiry within maximum period of two months and as the requirements are not complied with, this writ of mandamus has been filed.

4. Needless to point out that, when the allegation in the petition is that, the property, which belong to the petitioner has been included in the property, which has been sold to the third respondent, it is expected of the first respondent, to have initiated the enquiry, based upon Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to initiate enquiry and to complete the enquiry within a period of two months and to pass the final orders.

5. Under normal circumstances, as a person interested, this Court would have awarded notice to the third respondent, who has allegedly purchased the property belonging to the petitioner. However, an opportunity of hearing can be given by the first respondent, while conducting the enquiry, based on Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011. Therefore notice to R3 is dispensed with, having regard to limited scope, of prayer sought for.

6. Therefore, the first respondent is expected to give notice, not only to the petitioner but also to the third respondent, before completing the enquiry. In that way, the interest of the third respondent stands protected. Subject to the condition that the first respondent shall provide opportunity of hearing, both to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent, the enquiry shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Registrar, Office of District Registration Department, Tirunelveli District - 2.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Gangaikondan Sub-Registrar Office, Tirunelveli District.

+1cc to Mr.D.Selvanayagam ,Advocate, SR.No.52910 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.52867 W.P.(MD) No.17517 of 2016 16.09.2016 rj2/Srk MK-SU-MMS/30.1.2017/3p-5c