Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

A. Selvi Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others

A. Selvi vs The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 09, 2016
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190653

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition (MD).No. 10203 of 2016
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Selvi

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

.....in the office of the third respondent/sub registrar, kalaiyarkovil, sivagangai district. the further case of the petitioner is that the said vincent purchased the said land from one k.arul by way of registered sale deed dated 17.03.2006. in fact, the said arul purchased the said land from udaiyavelar and ganapathy and the property was the ancestral property of udaiyavelar family. under these circumstances, one amalraj, s/o.kulandhaisamy executed a power of attorney in favour of three persons viz., 1.gunasekaran s/o.ramuthevar 2.navaneethakrishnan, s/o.kumaraguru and 3.navannethan, s/o.irulappan, by using a fabricated document through document no.3889 of 2015, dated 09.11.2015, registered in the office of the third respondent. 4. the grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued circular no.67, dated 03.11.2011, which is on the subject of compliance relating to fraudulent registration through impersonation or production of false documents and in fact, the petitioner altogether with enclosures made a representation dated 26.02.2016 to the second respondent/district registrar, sivagangai to cancel the illegal document. since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. in view of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2016, addressed to the second respondent, is pending as on date, (without any disposal whatsoever), at this stage, this court, without traversing upon the merits and contents of the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.02.2016, simpliciter, in the interest of justice and fair play, directs the second respondent to look into the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2016 and to dispose of the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, on merits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. it is open to the petitioner to produce necessary copies of relevant records/documents before the second respondent and.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to annul the illegal document No.3889 dated 2015 registered in the 3rd respondent office as per the circular No. 67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2016.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. According to the petitioner, she purchased a land in Sy.No.291/1A measuring about 90 cents, situate at Kollangudi Village, Kollangudi group, Kalaiyarkovil Sub-division, Sivagangai District, (by means of a registered sale deed dated 01.06.2006) for valid consideration from one Vincent, S/o.Manickam and the same was registered in the office of the third respondent/Sub Registrar, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District. The further case of the petitioner is that the said Vincent purchased the said land from one K.Arul by way of registered sale deed dated 17.03.2006. In fact, the said Arul purchased the said land from Udaiyavelar and Ganapathy and the property was the ancestral property of Udaiyavelar family. Under these circumstances, one Amalraj, S/o.Kulandhaisamy executed a power of attorney in favour of three persons viz., 1.Gunasekaran s/o.Ramuthevar 2.Navaneethakrishnan, s/o.Kumaraguru and 3.Navannethan, s/o.Irulappan, by using a fabricated document through document No.3889 of 2015, dated 09.11.2015, registered in the office of the third respondent.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, which is on the subject of compliance relating to fraudulent registration through impersonation or production of false documents and in fact, the petitioner altogether with enclosures made a representation dated 26.02.2016 to the second respondent/District Registrar, Sivagangai to cancel the illegal document. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2016, addressed to the second respondent, is pending as on date, (without any disposal whatsoever), at this stage, this Court, without traversing upon the merits and contents of the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.02.2016, simpliciter, in the interest of Justice and Fair Play, directs the second respondent to look into the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2016 and to dispose of the same in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law, on merits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to produce necessary copies of relevant records/documents before the second respondent and if the documents/records are produced, the second respondent shall take into account of the same and pass necessary orders in the subject matter in issue within the time determined by this Court. The petitioner is directed to render his unstinted co-operation and assistance to the second respondent so as to enable him to dispose of the representation well within the time prescribed by this Court.

6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial