← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/20397/2016disposed of

S.Sasitharan S/O Sankarankutti v. The District Registrar

2016-10-21Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.10.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Writ Petition (MD) No.20397 of 2016 S.Sasitharan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Trichy, Trichy District.

2.Sundararaju ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and to conduct enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2016 and pass suitable orders by directing the 1st respondent to cancel the forged sale deed executed in document No.8204/2010 dated 29.09.2010, as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in circular No. 67 in C.No.52338/C1/2011, dated 03.11.2011 and pass such further or other orders as such this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja for R-1 Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, directing the 1st respondent to consider and to conduct enquiry on his representation dated 09.02.2016 and pass suitable orders by directing the 1st respondent to cancel the forged sale deed executed in document No.8204/2010, dated 29.09.2010, as per the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in circular No. 67 in C.No.52338/C1/2011 dated 03.11.2011 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. Since no order is passed prejudicial to the rights of the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. 3.According to the petitioner, he is said to have filed an application before the first respondent on 09.02.2016 to cancel the sale deed, said to have been executed in favour of the second respondent, dated 29.09.2010. According to him, the above sale deed is a forged one. Hence, he requested the first respondent to conduct enquiry, by following Circular No.67, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, dated 03.11.2011. Sofar, no order has been passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the material documents carefully.

5.In the above circumstances, since the petitioner's representation is dated 09.02.2016 and it is pending till date, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent/District Registrar, Trichy District, is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 09.02.2016 and conduct enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the second respondent and pass orders, after giving notice to the petitioner and second respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar vs To The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Trichy, Trichy District.

+1cc to Mr.J.Jeyakumaran Advocate Sr.No. 62580 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.62918 JAM/16.11.16/CK/ SAR I/2p-4c W.P(MD)No.20397 of 2016 21.10.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/