Madras High Court
Mr.Gugan vs The District Registrar (Chennai South) on 10 February, 2023
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.No.3817 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :10.02.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.3817 of 2023
and WMP.Nos.3886 & 3888 of 2023
Mr.Gugan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Registrar (Chennai South),
O/o.The District Registrar,
Integrated Buildings for Offices of the Commercial,
Taxes and Registration Department,
Fanepet, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2. The Sub-Registrar Pallavaram,
O/o.The Sub-Registrar Pallavaram,
Pallavaram.
3. Mrs,Meena
4. Mrs.Muniyammal
5. Mrs.Sownthari … Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records of order issued by the first respondent in
Na.Ka.No.138/e2/2020 dated 23.07.2021 and to quash the same and
direct the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry giving opportunity
to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.3817 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
for Mr.S.Joel
For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja
Government Advocate [R1 & R2]
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, under the said order dated 23.07.2021, the first respondent has declared the parent documents pertaining to various plots purchased by the petitioner and other neighbors as null and void. Therefore, a direction was given to the second respondent to make an entry in the concerned book of entry in the second respondent office.
3. Though the said order was passed under Section 68(2) read with Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, as against which, appeal is provided under the Act. Since the petitioner is not a party in the said proceedings and no notice had been given to the petitioner, even on that ground, even though the petitioner is having a good case to present before the Appellate Authority challenging the impugned order, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.No.3817 of 2023 petitioner is not in a position to prefer an appeal. Therefore, he has chosen to file this writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents, who would submit that insofar as the complaint given by the third respondent against the other private respondents is concerned, that has been enquired and orders have been passed by the first respondent, where if at all no complaint had been given against the petitioner and the plot, which was purchased by the petitioner also has been included in the order impugned, as against the same, being an aggrieved party, the petitioner can prefer an appeal. Therefore, to that extent, the petitioner can be protected, but so far as the order, which is impugned herein is concerned, on merits, the same can very well be agitated before the Appellate Authority, not before this Court. Hence, on that ground, the writ petition cannot be entertained, he contended.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.No.3817 of 2023
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. When we perused the orders passed by the first respondent, which is impugned herein dated 23.07.2021 is concerned, the plot No.131 also has been mentioned, which is the property purchased by the petitioner, therefore, necessary notice to the petitioner should have been given by the first respondent before passing the order impugned. Anyhow, the petitioner since has not been impleaded as one of the party respondents before the first respondent and resultantly, he has not been heard, therefore, at this juncture, if at all the petitioner wanted to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority may take a pedantic view that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, this Court feels that the petitioner can be given liberty to prefer an appeal against the order, which is impugned herein, before the Appellate Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.No.3817 of 2023
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:
It is open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be accepted and entertained by the Appellate Authority and if any other appeal by other private respondents herein is filed, the same shall also be considered on merits and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner and other parties. In this regard, in the order to be appealed, which is impugned herein, the petitioner can ask for grant of stay before the Appellate Authority and till the said stay is decided by the Appellate Authority, the impugned order shall not be given effect to. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.No.3817 of 2023 With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.02.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mp Note: Issue order copy on 15.02.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.No.3817 of 2023 To
1. The District Registrar (Chennai South), O/o.The District Registrar, Integrated Buildings for Offices of the Commercial, Taxes and Registration Department, Fanepet, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2. The Sub-Registrar Pallavaram, O/o.The Sub-Registrar Pallavaram, Pallavaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P.No.3817 of 2023 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
mp Writ Petition No.3817 of 2023 10.02.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8