Madras High Court
Dr.Ambedkar Salem City vs The Sub Registrar on 25 November, 2016
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.No.41499/2016 Dr.Ambedkar Salem City Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. S 1523, Rep. by its President, No.9, Palpillai Street Kottai Salem-1. .. Petitioner Vs. The Sub Registrar Suramangalam Salem West. .. Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus Calling for the records of the order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka. No.539/2016 dated 25.10.2016 quash the same and direct the respondent to register the documents in respect of S.Nos.93/5 to 8 94/4 and 96/1 in Jagir Ammapalayam Revenue Village and Jagireddipatti Village, Salem Taluk and District now T.S.Nos.108 113/1 113/2 115 123 124 in ward-A Block-30 and T.S.Nos.33 48 61 11 13 68 64 69 70 in block 32 and T.S.Nos.28, 29 and 78/1 in Block 34 measuring 18,882 Sq.ft. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palanisamy For Respondent : Mr.R.A.Senthilvel, AGP ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel, learned Additional Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and with the consent on either side the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 25.10.2016, with regard to non-registration of the unapproved plots and with a further prayer to direct the respondent to register the documents in respect of S.Nos.93/5 to 8 94/4 and 96/1 in Jagir Ammapalayam Revenue Village and Jagireddipatti Village, Salem Taluk and District now T.S.Nos.108 113/1 113/2 115 123 124 in ward-A Block-30 and T.S.Nos.33 48 61 11 13 68 64 69 70 in block 32 and T.S.Nos.28, 29 and 78/1 in Block 34 measuring 18,882 Sq.ft.
3 According to the petitioner, the plots in question are unapproved plots way back in the year 1972 and when the documents in respect of the said plots were presented before the respondent for registration, the same was denied by the respondent stating that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, the said documents cannot be registered, as the said plots are unapproved. This ground, according to the petitioner, is incorrect. But, a perusal of the typed set of papers annexed along with this writ petition, would disclose among other things that in the Reference dated 17.10.2016, the petitioner has categorically admitted that the plots which the petitioner is now trying to sell, is not the actual plots which have been approved ; it is the extra areas which are available adjacent or beyond the approved plots and the petitioner / Society is now trying to convert those areas into new plots and are trying to sell the same. In fact, the petitioner has used the following words in his representation:-
mt;thW tH';fg;gl;l kid epy';fSf;F mUfpy; TLjyhf cs;s Jz;L fhyp ,l';fis me;je;j kid jhuh;fSf;nf tpw;gid bra;jpl gjpthsh; (tPl;Ltrjp) brd;id mth;fspd; mDkjp nfhhp r';fj;jpd; rhh;gpy; bgwg;gl;l muR tHpfhl;o kjpg;g[ kw;Wk; nryk; khtl;l tUtha; mYtyhplk; bgwg;gl;l re;ij kjpg;g[ Mfpatw;Wld; Jizg;gjpthsh; (tPl;Ltrjp) nryk; mth;fSf;F r';fj;jpypUe;J Kd; bkhHpt[ mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ/ B.RAJENDRAN, J., AP 4 From the above, it is clear that they are the empty portions of the lands which are unapproved and which have not been sold till date and that the petitioner is now seeking approval for the said lands in order to sell them. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the respondent in not registering the unapproved plots in view of the stay granted by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, holds good, warranting no interference of this Court.
5 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
25.11.2016 AP To The Sub Registrar Suramangalam Salem West.WP.No.41499/2016