Madras High Court
S.J.Srinivasan vs Inspector General Of Registration – ... on 26 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1422
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 26/2/2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.5389 of 2019
S.J.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Inspector General of Registration – Tamil nadu
100 Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028.
2. District Registrar – North Chennai (Admn)
I Floor, Kuralagam
Esplanade Road
Chennai 600 104.
3. Sub-Registrar – Ponneri
9/5 Taluk Office Road
Ponneri 601 204. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to protect the
rights and interests of the public, as provided for in Sections 82 & 83 of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Court may, in furtherance of public interest,
inquire into the state of affairs of the subject matter of litigation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For petitioner ... Mr.S.J.Srinivasan
Party-in-Person
For respondents ... Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Special Government Pleader
(Registration)
------
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) Retired Assistant Professor of a deemed University and claiming to be a public spirited person, has sought for a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents, to protect the rights and interests of the public, as provided for, in Sections 82 & 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, and has further sought for a direction, to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject matter of litigation.
2. In the supporting affidavit, petitioner has contended as hereunder:-
“7. The Facts and Circumstances of my Petition before The DR is:
a) The Subject Lands originally belonged to the sons of (Late) Thiru S.Ramasamy, as His Legal Heirs, namely Thiru S.R.Subramaniyam and Thiru S.R.Jayaraman - Relevant SLR Extracts [Chitta] had been enclosed with the Said Petition.
b) That Thiru S.R.Subramaniyam and Thiru S.R.Jayaraman have executed between themselves and Registered a Partition Deed Document No.992/1976 at Ponneri SRO, wherein the Entire Lands as in The SLR was named as Schedule A, Lands assigned to Thiru S.R.Subramaniyam as Schedule B and Lands assigned to Thiru.S.R.Jayaraman as Schedule C. Certified copy of this http://www.judis.nic.in 3 registered partition deed Document No.992/1976 had been enclosed with the said petition.
c. That Thiru.S.R.Subamaniyam, elder brother of my (Late) father Thiru.S.R.Jayaraman (passed away on 18/5/2015), has settled lands acquired by my (Late) father through the said registered partition deed, to his three daughters, along with his share, through Settlement Deed Documents No.11745/2015, 11746/2015 and 11747/2015, all at Ponneri SRO and all dated 26/10/2015 and had earlier leased the same lands to his grandson Thiru.R.Sivaramakrishnan, through lease deed Document No.6747/2013. Certified copies of the four documents had been enclosed with the said petition.
d. The lands are acquired properties in the hands of both the brothers. The submissions made in the recitals of the four fraudulent documents that the lands are ancestral is wrong – false statement. Concealing the registered partition deed is another wrong - false statement. The said registered partition deed is the title deed for both the brothers. Hence Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam could have leased/settled only his schedule B lands.
e. The Ecs obtained for Schedule C Lands for the period 1/1/1965 till the date of filing of the said petition, would go to prove that Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam has not acquired any title over the Schedule C lands of my (Late) father. 52 years EC for the schedule C Lands had been enclosed with said petition.
8. A fraud has taken place. Representation is made to a statutory authority. The authority passes order (s) that are patently wrong and illegal on the face of it. Therefore, Grievance and Appeal Petitions are filed before IGR and Cognisance taken of. IGR seeks reports from the concerned DIG (Exs.A.1 & A.2). The DIC confirms DR Orders. IGR takes up the enquiry himself (Ex.A.3). IFR through the Additional IFR (Intelligence) writes to me and the DR (Ex.A4 & A5). The subject mentioned in the letters is complaint of fraudulent registration of documents in Ponneri SRO – complaint that North Chennai District Registrar is making wrong orders – thereof. The body of the letter says – the petition has been enquired into by IFR and as Circular 67 of IGR has been withdrawn by IGR, if the petitioner submits a fresh petition in terms of cited Circulars, the petition shall be enquired into and Orders Passed within four weeks and http://www.judis.nic.in 4 reported to the IGR Office’. A fresh Petition and a Written Statement, in terms of current circulars and citing the 2 Letters of Additional IGR [Intelligence] is submitted before DR [ExA6]. The DR calls for Enquiry. Enquiry is attended. The DR repeats the same Wrong Orders” . [ExA7]
9. The Impugned Order Passed by the 2nd Respondent herein is: ‘Though the Subject Lands belonged to The Petitioner’s Father Thiru S.R.Jayaraman[Late] by virtue o f a Registered Partition Deed Doc.No.992/1976 dt.07.07.1976 at Ponneri SRO between [late] Thiru S.R.Jayaraman and His Elder Brother Thiru S.R.Subramaniyam, as Thiru S.R.Subramaniyam Has Patta No.466 in his name for the Entire Lands including those o f Thiru S.R.Jayaraman, No wrong is found in the Registration o f the Lease Deed and the 3 Settlement Deeds, wherein Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam, has Leased/Settled the Entire Lands. Moreover, the Executant has said in the Recitals o f the 4 impugned deeds that the Subject Lands are His Ancestral Lands. The Patta submitted by the Executant has not been proved to be a Fraudulent One. Since the Petitioner's late father has a Registered Document to show his share of lands but the Respondent has Patta in his name for the entire lands, if the Petitioner has a grievance, he has to approach the Civil Courts for Relief/Remedy.’ Appeal to DIG [Chennai Zone] within 60 days is also provided for.
10.This Passing of a Wrong Order by DR after Enquiry by IGR himself and Letters to this Effect from The Additional IGR[Intelligence], is a mockery of the Administrative Principles.
11.The Impugned Order has not recorded the SLR Extracts & ECs for 52 years that clearly settle my Petition. Not Recording a clinching evidence is Illegal.
12.The Order provides an appeal before the DIG Chennai Zone whereas the fresh petition has been filed further to IGR directions after DIG had submitted his reports to IGR on my Appeal and Grievance Petitions.
13.The Finding in The Impugned Order that Patta No.466 Submitted by Thiru S.R.Subramaniyam in his name for the Entire Lands [including my Father’s Lands] has not been proven to be a Fraudulent Patta is Factually Wrong as mutation o f revenue records further to the Said Registered Partition Deed is not reflected in the Said Patta.
14. Having concluded “the petitioner's late father has a http://www.judis.nic.in 5 registered partition deed Document to show his share of lands but the respondent has patta in his name for the entire lands, “the District Registrar should have ordered the lease deed and the 3 settlement deeds as fraudulently registered documents, executed by making false statements that the subject lands are ancestral whilst being acquired, concealing the said registered partition deed and submitting a fraudulent patta not mutating the said registered partition deed, before a registering officer acting in execution of the Act and commenced prosecutions and making of Index II entries. The wrong claim of acquired lands as ancestral lands has been done to avoid submitting the original title deed which is the said registered partition deed wherein the respondent holds only Schedule B lands and Schedule C lands belong to my (late) father.
15. The whole gamut of the DR proceedings is to avoid recording a finding of fraudulent registrations and the consequent initiation of criminal proceedings by the Registration Department. This defeats the very purpose of the statute.”
3. Documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, reflect nothing but a personal dispute, between the petitioner, and his Uncle Mr.S.R.Subramaniyam.
4. Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, deals with penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation and abetment – Whoever -
a. intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act; or b. intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding http://www.judis.nic.in 6 under Section 19 or Section 21, a false copy or translation of a documnt, or a false copy of a map or plan; or c. falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or d. abets anything made punishable by this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
5. Section 83 deals with Registering Officer, who may commence prosecutions (1). A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector General, the Registrar or the Sub-
Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be the offence has been committed.
(2). Offences punishable under this act shall be triable by any Court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
6. It is the case of the petitioner that Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, are not invoked by the registration authorities, though their attention is invited. Petitioner has also placed reliance on a Circular No.18339/C1/2012, dated 25/4/2012, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
7. We have gone through the entire material on record and find that except to vindicate the personal grievance of the petitioner, there are absolutely no materials to substantiate the contention that the registration authorities have not invoked Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Further, there are no materials to indicate as to how entire public is affected.
Instant writ petition is purely a private interest litigation and there is no public interest involved.
8. For the purpose of filing this writ petition as a public interest writ petition, petitioner has stated the following facts:-
“I am a Civil Engineer, a retired Assistant Professor of a deemed University and a public spirited person. I am filing this writ petition in public interest, from and out of my own resources. My source of income is interest on retirement fund investment and Civil Engineering http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Consultancy Fee. My annual income is Rs.3,93,660/-. This petition is not guided by self-gain or gain of any other person/institution/body.”
9. Of late, we can notice there is a growing trend in abuse of public interest litigation, under the guise of public interest. Public Interest Litigation was intended to secure the justice for the poor and the weaker section of the community, not in a position to protect their own interests.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has time and again, has observed that there is, in the recent years, there is a feeling, which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and a procedure innovated, where a public-
spirited person files a petition in effect, on behalf of such persons, who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. {Refer BALCO http://www.judis.nic.in 9 EMPLOYEES'UNION (REGD) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS {2002 (2) SCC – 333}.
11. We have gone through the entire material on record. The present writ petition cannot be said to be in public interest. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions, the queue standing outside the doors of the Court, never moves and the piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose, faith in the administration of judicial system.
12. Reading of instant writ petition and the material on record, would show that there is nothing in this petition, which can be said to be in public interest. It does not advance any cause of the poor and down trodden.
13. In the light of the discussion and decision, action of the petitioner, in wasting time of this Court, is not appreciated and we deem it fit to impose costs of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with costs of http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), to be paid to the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice Fund, Ministry of Social Defence, Kellys, Chennai, for the cause of children. Amount has to be paid, within a period of ten days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if cost is not paid, District Collector, Chennai, is permitted to take proceeding, under the Revenue Recovery Act. District Collector, Chennai, if not taken any action, as directed, be answerable to this Court. No costs.
(S.M.K.,J) (S.P.,J)
26th February 2019
mvs.
Index: yes/No
Internet: yes.
Note: Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Collector, Chennai, immediately, for implementation of this order, in letter and spirit.
To
1. Inspector General of Registration – Tamil nadu 100 Santhome High Road Chennai 600 028.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
2. District Registrar – North Chennai (Admn) I Floor, Kuralagam Esplanade Road Chennai 600 104.
3. Sub-Registrar – Ponneri 9/5 Taluk Office Road Ponneri 601 204.
S.MANIKUMAR,J AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J http://www.judis.nic.in 12 mvs.
Writ Petition No.5389 of 201926/2/2019 http://www.judis.nic.in