Poovalingam. M v. The Sub-Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN M.Poovalingam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Sub-Collector, Sub-Collector Office, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
3.Manoharan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass the appropriate order regarding the cancellation of the patta in respect of the SF.No.286/2B Vallam Group, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District within a time frame fixed by this Court. 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate for R1 & R2.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. 2.The third respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)No.26824 of 2023, questioning the enquiry notice issued by the first respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.11.2023 in the following terms:- "2.The third respondent moved the District Registrar, Sivagangai for cancelling the following three sale deeds: i) Document No.236/2022 ii) Document No.1373/2022 iii) Document No.1463/2022 The third sale deed ie., Document No.1463/2022 is standing in the name of the petitioner. The second respondent herein accepted the complaint of the third respondent and passed an 2/6
order in his favour on 11.04.2023. Questioning the same, the petitioner's vendor filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has moved the first respondent for cancelling the patta that is standing in the name of the petitioner. The first respondent has issued enquiry notice. From forbearing the first respondent from conducting any enquiry, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3.It is true that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding. But then, the third respondent who had obtained an order in his favour cannot be expected to keep quiet. He will obviously take advantage of the order dated 11.04.2023 whereby the document in question were labelled as fraudulent and registration was also cancelled. 4.
Since the said order has been put to challenge by way of an appeal, it is just and proper the petitioner is given breathing time to get interim relief. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the very scope and applicability of 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is now under consideration by the Larger Bench. He pointed out that the Inspector General of Registration had issued circular for keeping enquiry in abeyance 5.In these circumstances, it is for the petitioner to question the impugned proceedings dated 11.04.
obtain relief. The petitioner is given two months times from today (08.11.2023) to adopt such a course of action. The first respondent will keep the enquiry proceedings on hold for a period of two months. If the petitioner is unable to obtain any interim order in his favour in respect of the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the second respondent, the first respondent can resume the proceedings. If the petitioner is successful in his efforts, the petition mentioned proceedings will abide by the same."
3.This writ petition is filed for expediting the proceedings. In view of the order dated 08.11.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.26824 of 2023, no further order is required in the present writ petition. 4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 24.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 4/6
To:- 1.The Sub-Collector, Sub-Collector Office, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
5/6
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias 24.11.2023 6/6