Madras High Court
M/S.Vardan Foods Private Ltd vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 11 April, 2016
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.04.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.4464 of 2016
1.M/s.Vardan Foods Private Ltd.,
A-23, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi 52,
Represented by its Power of Attorney,
Pramod Kumar,
S/o.Ramesh Chander.
2.M/s.South North Agro Private Ltd.,
Samana, Patiala,
Panjab ? 147 001,
Represented by its Power of Attorney,
Pramod Kumar,
S/o.Ramesh Chander. .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Chennai ? 600 028.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Registration Department,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Registration Department,
Kariyapatti Sub Registrar Office,
Kariyapatti,
Virudhunagar District.
4.Creative Agro-Tech Private Ltd.,
Door No.84-A, Mittal Court,
224, Nariman Point,
Mumbai.
5.Royal Promoters,
No.61, Duraisamy Road,
T.V.S. Nagar,
Madurai ? 625 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3790/2015/A4, dated 09.12.2015
and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent
to annul the entries made in sale deed Document Nos.2823/2007, 2824/2007,
2829/2007, 2787/2007 and 2788/2007 of the fourth respondent and annul the
entries in Document Nos.772/2007, 774/2007, 826/2007 and 827/2007 of the
fifth respondent in so far as the petitioners agricultural landed properties
covered under the Sale Deed Documents bearing Nos.1298/2006, 1299/2006,
1300/2006, 1407/2006, 1760/2006 and 1493/2006 in favour of Vardan Foods
Private Ltd., and Document No.1589 of 2007 in favour of South North Agro
Private Ltd., within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court.
!For petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja
1 to 3 Government Advocate
For respondent 4 : Mr.V.Srinivasan
:O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 09.12.2015.
2.The only grievance of the petitioner is that after deciding the issue on merits, the authority citing the order of stay granted by the Principal Bench of this Court in M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2012 in W.P.Nos.26019 to 26021 of 2012 has wrongly come to the conclusion that he cannot proceed further. Whereas in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.5908 of 2012 and batch, this Court has passed an order confirming that the Circular No.67 is valid. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the entire case is now over and thus, the authority has got valid right to pass further orders. Unfortunately, after coming to the conclusion that no further order was passed and the petitioner challenges only that portion which says that because of the order of interim stay the authority has not passed further orders.
3.Now the petitioner is aggrieved only against the order of the second respondent for the reason that having come to the conclusion that they have got the right to decide the matter under Circular No.67, he should not have dismissed only on the ground that there is an order of interim stay in a batch of writ petitions. Whereas in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.5908 of 2012 and batch, it is held that there is no prohibition for the authority to dispose of the matter, on merits and in accordance with law. Even though the order was passed on merits in favour of the petitioner, in the last portion alone it has been stated that no order has been passed because of the injunction granted, which is wrong. Further, the contention of the fourth respondent that he also has the right to challenge the order, but, at this point of time, it does not arise since there is no interim order against the authority to pass order under Circular No.67. In other words, he can pass an order absolutely based on the findings. Hence, the matter is remitted back to the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the case of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, as there is no injunction order as asserted in the impugned order.
4.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Chennai ? 600 028.
2.The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Kariyapatti Sub Registrar Office, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District..