Sathyamoorthy, v. The District Registrar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.2705 of 2011 Sathyamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, Karur, Karur District.

2. The Sub-Registrar, No.2, Joint Registrar Office, Karur.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2011.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2011.

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in S.F.No.454 measuring to an extent of Acre.5.26 originally belonged to one Rama Naicker and subsequently, the petitioner had purchased the same from the legal heirs. Later, while carrying out the subdivision of the said land, there was some mistake in the patta and hence the petitioner submitted the original patta relating to S.F.No.454/1, 454/2 and 454/3 to the Tahsildar, Karur for issuance of fresh patta. It is the further case of the petitioner that there was a dispute between him and one Marappan in respect of sharing of well water situated in S.F.No.454/2 and in this regard, two suits in O.S.Nos.410 and 464 of 2009 are pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur. Subsequently, pursuant to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

execution of sale deed dated 06.10.2011 by Soundararajan, son of Marappa Gounder in favour of third parties, a lot of encumbrances were created over the property. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the second respondent on 06.01.2011 and pursuant to the inaction on the part of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if the representation dated 06.01.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent is directed to be considered in a time bound manner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any.

6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Registrar, Karur, Karur District.

2. The Sub-Registrar, No.2, Joint Registrar Office, Karur.

Rm MK/KK/SAR-3/03.11.2017/2P/3C W.P(MD)No.2705 of 2011 23.10.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/