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.

I.Mohanraj vs Inspector General of Regisration

I.Mohanraj vs Inspector General of Regisration

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 29, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413702

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/955/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

I.Mohanraj

Respondent

Inspector General of Regisration

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 29.01.2026coramthe honourable mr.justice senthilkumar ramamoorthy i.mohanraj .. petitioner vs 1.inspector general of registration,4.district collector, cuddalore district. .. respondents petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct a proper field enquiry and to fix the guideline value for the petitioner’s land situated at survey no.357/2a in senganangkollai village, tirukoilur taluk, kallakurichi district as agricultural land on par with the surrounding agricultural lands. for petitioner : mr.a.k.rajaraman for respondents : mr.u.baranidharan, special government pleaderorderthe petitioner asserts that he had proposed a lay out in respect of 1.52 acres from and out of 4.62 acres in survey no.357/2a. according to him, the registering officer has failed to fix any guideline value for the remaining extent, which is in the form of agricultural land. after submitting representations in respect of failure to classify and deny the petitioner the benefit of guideline value for agricultural land, the present writ petition has been filed.2. mr.u.baranidharan, learned special government pleader,accepts notice for all the respondents. since the representations are pending consideration by the third respondent, he submits that the third respondent would pass orders on merits within six weeks.3. accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits,this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 27.09.2025 and 20.11.2025 and pass orders thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. there shall be no order as to costs.index:yes/no mmi to 1.the inspector general of registration, 4.the district collector, cuddalore district.senthilkumar ramamoorthy,j.mmi

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY I.Mohanraj .. Petitioner vs 1.Inspector General of Registration,

4.District Collector, Cuddalore District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct a proper field enquiry and to fix the guideline value for the petitioner’s land situated at Survey No.357/2A in Senganangkollai Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District as agricultural land on par with the surrounding agricultural lands. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Rajaraman For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner asserts that he had proposed a lay out in respect of 1.52 acres from and out of 4.62 acres in Survey No.357/2A. According to him, the registering officer has failed to fix any guideline value for the remaining extent, which is in the form of agricultural land. After submitting representations in respect of failure to classify and deny the petitioner the benefit of guideline value for agricultural land, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader,

accepts notice for all the respondents. Since the representations are pending consideration by the third respondent, he submits that the third respondent would pass orders on merits within six weeks.

3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits,

this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 27.09.2025 and 20.11.2025 and pass orders thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

Index:Yes/No mmi To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 4.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial