Madras High Court
Dorothy Manimuthu vs The Secretary To The Government on 9 April, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
Dorothy Manimuthu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Registration Department,
Secretariat,
St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Office,
No.100, Santhom High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Keeloor, Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to
take necessary action against the erred officials, by considering the
petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathyasingh,
Additional Government Pleader.
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action on the complaint given by the
petitioner on 05.12.2020 against the officers belonging to the 5th
respondent, the Sub Registrar's office.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property, situated at
S.No.167/1A, measuring an extent of 3 acres and 93 cents, originally
belonged to one Michel Savari Muthu Ammal. The owner of the property,
subsequently, executed a sale deed in favour of two persons and a separate
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
patta was also issued in their favour in patta No.5801. These two persons,
after purchasing the property, executed a power of attorney in favour of one
Panguraj.
3. The above said Panguraj, as an agent, dealt with the property and
the petitioner purchased the western portion of the property in S.No.
167/1A, to an extent of 1 acre 96 cents, by a registered sale deed, dated
12.04.2007.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that the two persons, had
subsequently, executed a release deed with respect to the eastern portion of
the property, measuring an extent of 1 acre and 96 cents in favour of six
persons.
5. There was a dispute among the parties and a suit came to be filed
in O.S.No.518 of 2012, before the Principal District Munsif Court,
Thoothukudi and in the said suit, the sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioner was also put to challenge. This suit, on contest, was dismissed by
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
a judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017. It is stated that this judgment and
decree was also registered on the file of the fifth respondent, as document
No.3472 of 2017.
6. The further case of the petitioner is that the property was
subsequently subdivided and a separate patta was issued in the name of the
petitioner in S.No.167/1A1 in patta No.1975.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the period from 2012
to 2020, the property was converted as plots and several documents were
created and registered before the fifth respondent. While doing so, even the
property of the petitioner was dealt with and it was also plotted out.
According to the petitioner, this was done only with the connivance of the
fifth respondent.
8. The petitioner therefore, made a complaint before the respondents
1 to 4 on 05.12.2020, seeking for taking action against the concerned
officials and also the parties, who had done fraudulent transfers. Since the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
same was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed before
this Court seeking for appropriate direction.
9. Heard Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.K.Sathyasingh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
10. The main ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the property belonging to the petitioner could not have
been dealt with even without verifying in whose name the patta stood for
the subject property. According to the petitioner, a separate patta was
issued in her favour in patta No.1975 for S.No.167/1A1. Therefore,
according to the petitioner, there was a fraudulent transfer in connivance
with the fifth respondent. Yet another ground that has been taken is that
while converting as a house site, necessary permission must be given by the
planning authority and a document cannot be registered as a house site
without this permission, since there is a bar under Section 22-A(2) of the
Registration Act, 1908. In spite of such a bar, the fifth respondent has
proceeded to register the plots which are unauthorized.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
11. This Court finds that a strong case has been made out by the
petitioner and the transactions that had taken place will have to be enquired
by the fourth respondent, in exercise of powers under Sections 82 and 83 of
the Registration Act, 1908. If any fraudulent transactions have taken place,
necessary action has to be taken against the concerned persons and
officials, who are involved.
12. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the fourth
respondent to consider the compliant given by the petitioner on 05.12.2020
and call the concerned parties for an enquiry. The fourth respondent shall
deal with the complaint, strictly, in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
13. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the
fourth respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of
this order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
14. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
costs.
09.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsm
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
Note : pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Registration Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Office,
No.100, Santhom High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Keeloor, Thoothukudi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
vsm
W.P.(MD)No.1674 of 2021
09.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
