Madras High Court
Stella Edward vs The District Registrar ... on 16 December, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.18951 of 2021
Stella Edward ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar (Administration),
Trichy,
Trichy District.
2.The Sub-Registrar Joint-1 & 2,
Joint – 1 & 2 Sub Registrar Office,
Trichy,
Trichy District.
3.Ramadevi ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.17030/A4/2021 dated 25.11.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar
For Mr.B.Saravanan
For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.J.John Rajadurai
Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petitioner has come to Court in the nature of Certiorari
questioning a notice issued by the first respondent dated 25.11.2021 in
Na.Ka.No.17030/A4/2021.
2. By the said notice, the petitioner had been called upon to
participate in an enquiry on a petition given by the third respondent. The short
facts which have lead to the filing of this Writ Petition and also giving of
representation by the third respondent are that the petitioner, was nominated as
an agent by a registered document by one Ammasi. That document was
registered on 17.07.1996 as Document No.1003/1996 in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Trichy.
3. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioner that on the basis of the
power of attorney, the petitioner had sold the property to her husband,
S.Edward by a registered document dated 10.03.2008. Subsequently, her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
husband unfortunately expired. Now, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the title of the property vests with the petitioner and the legal
heirs/her children.
4. In the meanwhile, a representation has been given by the third
respondent to the first respondent/the District Registrar (Administration) in
Trichy District, claiming that the power of attorney document itself is not a true
document, since Ammasi had died on 17.12.1996 and thereafter, her legal heirs
had given a power of attorney in favour of one Nalluchamy. It had therefore
been claimed that the entire line of title claimed by the petitioner is based on a
document which is questionable.
5. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
first respondent has no jurisdiction to examine the representation given and
learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment given by a learned Single Judge
of this Court on 29.10.2021 in a batch of Writ Petitions, S.Kanniammal @
Mangai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and others. Learned counsel therefore
stated that the only appropriate course which the third respondent should take is
to institute a civil suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
6. If the first respondent who had issued the notice to the
petitioner has no jurisdiction, the petitioner can very well inform the first
respondent that he has no jurisdiction to proceed further and if according to the
aforesaid judgment, the first respondent has again no jurisdiction, a copy of the
said judgment may be given by the petitioner to the first respondent and invite
him to pass an order on his own jurisdiction to proceed further on the
representation given by the third respondent. At any rate, the first respondent
will have to take a decision after hearing both the petitioner and the third
respondent.
7. This Court cannot interfere even before the enquiry has started.
It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was
originally fixed on 06.12.2021 and the petitioner did not participate in the
enquiry. It was therefore adjourned to 15.12.2021 and the petitioner appeared
and it has been again adjourned. Whenever the date is fixed for next hearing,
the petitioner is free to raise issues on the jurisdiction of the first respondent
quite apart from answering the averments made in the notice and an obligation
is placed on the first respondent, also to give a finding on his authority to
examine the representation given by the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
8. This Court can never interfere even before such an enquiry has
commenced. It is for the authority to pass necessary orders following due
principles of natural justice. Judicial review will not lie at this stage. Judicial
review will lie only when an order is passed by an administrative authority and
if at all the principles of natural justice are violated. That is not the grievance
of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had been issued with a notice and it is
her duty to participate in the enquiry.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. In view of the order passed, the notice is dispensed with to the third
respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr/Lm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
To
1.The District Registrar (Administration),
Trichy,
Trichy District.
2.The Sub-Registrar Joint-1 & 2,
Joint – 1 & 2 Sub Registrar Office,
Trichy,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Nsr/Lm
W.P.(MD).No.22396 of 2021
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
