R.Natarajkumar v. The Inspector General Of Registration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourth day of September Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SUNDAR R.NATARAJKUMAR ... PETITIONER Vs 1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NO.100, SANTHOME HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(ADMINISTRATION), RAMANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE SUB-REGISTRAR RAMANATHAPURAM 4 S.GANESAN 5 BOOPATHIRAJ 6 KALYANI ... RESPONDENTS Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1070/A1/2019 dated 24.05.2019 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry on petitioners representation dated 24.04.2019 pertaining to fraudulent registration of sale deed in Document No. 1206/2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent and pass orders as per the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent.
ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.R.NARAYANAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.V.ANAND, Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 the court made the following order:- Mr.R.Narayanan, counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court.
1/3
2. Central theme of this writ petition is a sale deed dated 06.06.2013, which has been registered as Document No.1206/2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent, who is the jurisdictional SubRegistrar.
3. To be noted, said sale deed is said to have been executed by the 4th respondent as vendor and vendees are respondents 5 and 6.
4. Be that as it may, writ petitioner submits that the registration of said sale deed is fraudulent, learned counsel submits that action is sought in accordance with Circular bearing Letter No.41530/U1/2017, dated 08.11.2017 issued by respondent No.1. Learned counsel adverting to the circular, submits that it is imperative that 3rd respondent verifies the original title deed before registration.
5. Furthering his submission in this direction, adverting to the impugned order dated 24.05.2019, it was submitted that the third respondent has verified only the patta or in other words has not verified title deed.
6. Be that as it may, post impugned order, second respondent has been directed by Additional Inspector General of Registration to conduct enquiry inter alia under Section 68 (2) of the Registration Act. Writ petitioner counsel submits that writ petitioner has not received any notice as of today, pursuant to the same.
7. Mr.V.Anand, Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 (official respondents) and seeks time to get instructions and revert to this Court about further action that has been taken by the second respondent, pursuant to directions from Additional Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, vide Communication dated 02.07.2019 post impugned order.
8. At request of State Counsel, list on 25.09.2019.
9. Registry to show the name of State counsel in the next listing.
sd/- 04/09/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
2/3
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NO.100, SANTHOME HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(ADMINISTRATION), RAMANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE SUB-REGISTRAR RAMANATHAPURAM COPY TO : 1.THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI.
2.THE SECOTION OFFICER, WRIT SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN Date :04/09/2019 SM PK/VR/SAR-2/09.09.2019 : 3P/6C 3/3