← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/29676/2025disposed of

P.Murugan v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2025-10-23Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan5 pages

WP(MD) NO. 29676 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD) NO. 29676 of 2025 P.Murugan S/o.Paraman, North Street, Kondamanayakan Patty, Thimarasanayakanur, Aundipatty, Theni District.

Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar Thenkarai, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.

3. The Sub Registrar O/o. The Sub Registrar, Aundipatty, Theni District.

4.Kaluvayi 5.Vellaichamy Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriation action in the light of the order passed by this Honble court in W.P.(MD).No.1310 of 2021 dated 10.10.2023 based on the finger print report dated 24.09.2024 and to take necessary steps remove the 4th and 5th respondents name in the Revenue Records in respect of the property in survey No.1759/7 and pass such further or other orders in stipulated time period fixed by this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.U.Antony Santhosh For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, Government Advocate for R1 to R3

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents. Issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

2.The petitioner had earlier filed WP(MD)No.1310 of 2021. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2023 in the following terms : "This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 14.10.2020, wherein the petitioner is seeking for the cancellation of the document and for taking action against the respondents 4 and 5.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was originally owned by his mother by virtue of the registered sale deed, dated 12.04.1999, registered as Document No.1044 of 1999. The mother of the petitioner settled/gifted the property in favour of the petitioner through a registered document, dated 27.02.2006, registered as Document No.644 of 2006.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent had forged the signature of the petitioner's mother and thereby, had created a fraudulent Power of Attorney document and based on the same, a sale deed was executed in favour of the fifth

respondent. The petitioner has made a representation to the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and to cancel the document and to take action against the respondents 4 and 5. Since the same was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 14.10.2020 by calling for an enquiry, by issuing notice to the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and a decision shall be taken on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order."

3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent had not acted as per the direction given by this Court. The petitioner states that he could not file contempt petition immediately, because, the petitioner could obtain copy of the finger print expert result only on 24.09.2024. When a contempt petition can very well be filed, the question of entertaining a second writ petition does not arise. 4.Considering the fact that the enforcement of the order of this Court is in question, I permit the petitioner to file a contempt petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that such contempt petition will be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such contempt petition is filed as undertaken before me, the Registry shall number the same without raising the question of limitation.

5.This writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 23-10-2025 skm To

1. The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar Thenkarai, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.

3. The Sub Registrar O/o. The Sub Registrar, Aundipatty, Theni District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

skm WP(MD) NO. 29676 of 2025 23.10.2025