Madras High Court
Shakeela Rani vs The Principal Secretary And on 9 April, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.3107 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 Shakeela Rani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road, Chennai-28. 3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Karaikudi taluk, Sivagangai District. 5.The District Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 6.The Sub Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09, dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioner to an extent of 2,400 sq. ft. in Plot No.82, Prabhu Nagar, Old Survey No.65/15, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and quash the same and direct the sixth respondent herein to forthwith register the document in respect of the aforesaid lands of the petitioner. !For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Govardhanan ^For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam, Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09, dated 25.03.2009 insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioner to an extent of 2,400 sq. ft. in Plot No.82, Prabhu Nagar, Old Survey No.65/15, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and quash the same and direct the sixth respondent herein to forthwith register the document in respect of the aforesaid lands of the petitioner.
2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the earlier order of this Court, dated 25.04.2014, passed in W.P(MD)No.13811 of 2012 and prayed for similar orders in this writ petition also.
3. Mr.T.R.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, fairly submitted that the issue herein has already been settled by this Court in the above said order and hence, prayed for passing appropriate orders.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. In K.Rajaguru v. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai and 5 others, [W.P(MD)No.13811 of 2012, decided on 25.04.2014], this Court has passed the following order:
"2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a landed property having an extent of 2325 square feet in Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, due to financial constraints, the petitioner wants to sell the property and when he presented the document before the sixth respondent, for sale, he came to know that the document in respect of Survey No.65, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, could not be registered on account of the impugned proceedings. Therefore, challenging the said proceedings dated 25.03.2009, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The sixth respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the first respondent requested the third respondent to direct the fourth respondent herein to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009 and to inform the same to the Registration Department and hence, the order regarding withdrawal of the said memo is awaited by the sixth respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner's property is also coming under the said Survey Nos.65/1 and 65/2. Hence, the sixth respondent is awaiting further instructions from the Revenue Department in this regard. Hence, the sixth respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent, by proceedings dated 10.04.2012, has already requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the impugned memo dated 25.03.2009 and to inform the same to the Registration Department. Despite the said order, till today, the fourth respondent has not taken any steps to withdraw the impugned memo, because of which, the sixth respondent refused to entertain the document presented for registration. Hence, the learned counsel wants to set aside the said memo.
5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkaddu Grama Vivasayigal Sangam v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & 3 others [2008(3) LW 766], wherein at paragraph No.14, it has been held as follows:
"14. That apart, there is no other provision under which the State Government or the respondents herein can validly issue any directions refusing to register any document for which registration is permissible under the provisions of the said Act. If that be so, it is shocking to note as to under what provision of law or any other authority, the second respondent issued such directions directing the third respondent not to register any sale deed in the villages of Thiyagavalli and Kudikkadu except in favour of "M/s.Cuddalore Power Company Ltd." Any such directions issued by the second respondent and the impugned proceedings of the third respondent based on such a directive of the second respondent clearly infringes the constitutional right of any land owner as a citizen of this country. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings are wholly devoid of merits and are liable to be set aside."
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the averments made in the counter-affidavit and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. On a misconception that the Survey Nos.65/1 and 65/2 are related to Government properties, the fourth respondent, by memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein, directed the Sub-Registrar, not to register the documents presented for registration. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, by letter dated 10.04.2012, requested the Collector to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein and inform the same to the Registration Department. But, till date, the said latter had not been withdrawn, so that the authorities continued refusing registration of the document presented by the petitioner.
9. The Government filed a counter-affidavit referring to the direction given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, so that the document sought to be registered was not registered. Now, the Government itself requested the District Collector, by letter dated 10.04.2012, to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, to withdraw the memo dated 25.03.2009, which is impugned herein and on that score, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons and also in view of the decision cited supra, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned memo dated 25.03.2009 is set aside and the sixth respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner, if it is otherwise found fit and release the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs."
6. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.A1/1357/09, dated 25.03.2009, insofar as it relates to the lands of the petitioner to an extent of 2,400 sq. ft. in Plot No.82, Prabhu Nagar, Old Survey No.65/15, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, is set aside and the sixth respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner, if it is otherwise found fit and release the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Index :Yes/No 09.04.2015
Internet :Yes/No
rsb
To
1.The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhom High Road,
Chennai-28.
3.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Devakottai, Karaikudi taluk,
Sivagangai District.
5.The District Registrar,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
6.The Sub Registrar,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rsb
W.P(MD)No.3107 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
09.04.2015