R.M.Thivyavani v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI R.M.Thivyavani ... Petitioner vs.
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Integrated Building of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakambeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai.
2. The District Registrar (Administration), Periyakulam District Registrar Office, Theni District.
3. The Sub Registrar, Andipatti Sub Registration, Andipatti, Theni District.
... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry and take appropriate departmental action against the third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2025. 1/7
For Petitioner : Ms.M.Sudharani For R1 - R3 : Mr.S.Saji Bino Spl. Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry and take appropriate departmental action against the third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2025.
2. Heard Ms.M.Sudharani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Saji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2/7
4. The petitioner submits that, following the death of her grandfather, the property devolved upon her mother and grandmother. They executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner on 13.04.2022, measuring an extent of 76 cents, vide registered Document No. 1631 of 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner sold 69.5 cents of the said property to Murugan, Nagathevar and Pitchaimani on 30.06.2023, vide Document No. 3563 of 2023, retaining 6.5 cents in her possession. However, during the Updating of Registry (UDR) process, the patta was erroneously issued in favour of Karmegam, who is in no way connected to the petitioner's family. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Revenue Divisional Officer to make the necessary corrections to the computerized patta and remove Karmegam's name.
The petitioner also submitted an objection petition to the Sub-Registrar, Nilakottai, requesting that no entry, registration, or encumbrance be made in respect of the land in Survey No. 425/8A2B. The petitioner's grievance is that, despite her objection, the SubRegistrar, Nilakottai, registered a sale deed executed by Pushpam and other parties in favour of Jeyaprakash, who subsequently transferred the property to Kalavathi. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition.
3/7
5. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that any dispute regarding the property between the petitioner and Jeyaprakash does not confer standing on the petitioner to challenge the actions of the Sub-Registrar. Taking disciplinary action against a public servant, such as the Sub-Registrar, is the prerogative right of the employer. The issue raised in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: "9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate.
advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court."
6. Applying the above ratio in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that that the petitioner, being a third party to any departmental proceedings against the Sub-Registrar, has no locus standi to seek judicial review of such action. Furthermore, the petitioner's grievance does not involve a public interest of general importance that would justify invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In light of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner is not maintainable.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remedies in accordance with law. No costs. 11.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN 5/7
To
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Integrated Building of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakambeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai.
2. The District Registrar (Administration), Periyakulam District Registrar Office, Theni District.
3. The Sub Registrar, Andipatti Sub Registration, Andipatti, Theni District.
6/7
M.DHANDAPANI ,J.
PKN ORDER MADE IN DATED : 11.08.2025 7/7