Madras High Court
M/S.Pearlcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd vs The District Registrar (Chennai South) on 25 July, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.24830 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.24830 of 2021
And
W.M.P.Nos.17270 of 2022 and 26112 of 2021
M/s.Pearlcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director
Mr.Sridhar ... 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.Meena
4.Hemamalini
5.S.Kandhasamy ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of order
issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.257/e2/2020 dated
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24830 of 2021
23.07.2021 and to quash the same and conduct fresh enquiry giving
opportunity to the petitioner company.
For Petitioner : Mr.Karthikeyan
for M/s.M.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish for R1 and R2
Additional Government Pleader
M/s.K.Suhasini for R3
No Appearance for R4 and R5
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of order issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.257/e2/2020 dated 23.07.2021 and to quash the same and to conduct fresh enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner company.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the disputed property originally belonged to the fifth respondent and he executed settlement deed in favour of his daughter/ fourth respondent and the petitioner purchased the property from the fourth respondent vide three sale deeds dated 18.12.2018 registered as Document Nos.10305 to 10307 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram and also obtained patta. Thereafter, the petitioner developed the property by 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24830 of 2021 constructing 15 flats and sold 10 flats to third parties. While such being the position, the first respondent, based on the representation made by the third respondent claiming herself as the owner of the property, passed the impugned order, without even issuing any notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent made complaint before the first respondent as if the documents held by the respondents 4 and 5 are fraudulent documents, however, the first respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry with the respondents 4 and 5, has passed the impugned order as against the petitioner who is the subsequent purchaser. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent purchaser who purchased the property from the fourth respondent for a valuable sale consideration and after getting appropriate approval from the competent Authorities, constructed flats in the property and also sold most of the flats. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable one.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24830 of 2021 submitted that as against the impugned order, there is effective appeal remedy available to the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. Hence, this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and issue direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration to entertain the said appeal without insisting upon the period of limitation and without questioning the locus standi of the petitioner.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the fifth respondent without any title executed settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent alienated the property in favour of the petitioner and further submitted that the petitioner is un-necessary party who created fraudulent document along with other persons is not sustainable one.
6.Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and since expressing any opinion on the merits of the case will adversely affect the petitioner as well as the private respondents, this Court, refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and permits the petitioner to file appeal 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24830 of 2021 before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. If any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the concerned Deputy Inspector General of Registration shall consider the said appeal without insisting upon the period of limitation and without questioning the locus standi of the petitioner and after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 to 5, dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.
7.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.07.2022 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No 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.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24830 of 2021 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri W.P.No.24830 of 2021 And W.M.P.Nos.17270 of 2022 and 26112 of 2021 25.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis