P.Palanivel Murugan v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR P.Palanivel Murugan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.
2.The Sub Registrar No.I, Periyakulam No.I, Joint Sub Registrar Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Madurai.
... Respondents [R3 & R4 are impleaded vide order dated 13.08.2024] PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3021-11/ORB/2024, dated 21.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's plot Nos.100, 106 and 517 situated at Thamaraikulam Village 2nd Bit Lakshmipuram Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District within the time frame fixed by this Court. 1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Madhava Govindan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the refusal slip issued by the second respondent dated 21.06.2024.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner on 08.11.2018 from Neomax Developers Private Limited for valuable consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner proposed to sell the same. Hence, the petitioner presented a sale deed in this regard. The same was refused to be registered citing the communication sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Economic Wing stating that the properties in question are under the process of attachment in connection with the criminal case registered in Crime No.3 of 2023.
2/5
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased the subject property in the year 2018 and the criminal case has been registered in the year 2023. Therefore, the subject property is no way connected with the alleged offence registered in Crime No.3 of 2023 and hence, the refusal made by the second respondent is not valid.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the properties in question are the subject matter of the case registered in Crime No.3 of 2023 and the said properties have been purchased out of the money deposited by the depositors. Further, the attachment proceedings is in progress and necessary Government Order in this regard will be issued shortly. Hence, he opposed this writ petition. 6.While dealing with the similar issue on hand, this Court had already directed the Government to pass necessary Government Order within a period of few days and steps are being taken to issue such Government Order. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in this matter. If the property of the petitioner is covered under the Government Order proposed to be issued, it is for the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to raise the attachment.
3/5
7.With the above observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
18.10.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no ta To 1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.
2.The Sub Registrar No.I, Periyakulam No.I, Joint Sub Registrar Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Madurai.
4/5
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta 18.10.2024 5/5