[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Anush Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., vs The Inspector General Of Registration, on 8 April, 2026
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
WP No. 12829 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
WP No. 12829 of 2026
M/s.Anush Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director
Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy,
Having office at No.908 B,
Radiance shine Apartments,
Old Mahabalipuram road,
kazhipattur, chennai - 603 103.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, santhome high road,
R.A.Puram, chennai - 600 028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
49/1A, GST Road, Alagesan Nagar, J C K
Nagar, chengalpattu, Ammanambakkam,
Tamilnadu - 603001.
3. The District Registrar,
chengalpet District, Chengalpet - 603 001.
4. K.S.Subramaniyam
5. K.Muthukumar
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to
dispose the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025 in relation to
cancellation of entries made in the encumbrance certificate dated 13.11.2025 at
the instructions of the first respondent by Sub-Registrar, Tiruporur, where the
first respondent given findings as if a) The power of attorney executed by
__________
Page1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 12829 of 2026
S.Kandaswamy in favour of Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy on 01.02.2005 and regd. as
Doc. No.86/2005 to an extent of 6 acres not valid; b) Another power of attorney
executed by S.Kandaswamy in favour Mr.Sukumar Reddy on 02.02.2005 and
regd. As Doc. No.96/2005 to an extent of 2.18 cents not valid; and c) Sale deed
executed by Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy as a power agent in favour of M/s.Anush
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 23.03.2006 and regd. as Doc. No.2703/2006 to an
extent of 26.71 cents declaring not valid which are the subject matter of both
suits in O.S.No.57/2022 and O.S.No.89/2023.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Subba Reddy
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Harish, GA for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a limited relief. According to
the petitioner, arbitrarily, in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 13.11.2025 for
the property morefully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ
petition, the following entries have been made by the first respondent:
a) The power of attorney executed by S.Kandaswamy in
favour of Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy on 01.02.2005 and regd. as
Doc. No.86/2005 to an extent of 6 acres not valid;
b) Another power of attorney executed by S.Kandaswamy in
favour Mr.Sukumar Reddy on 02.02.2005 and regd. as Doc.
No.96/2005 to an extent of 2.18 cents not valid; and
c) Sale deed executed by Mr.M.Sukumar Reddy as a power
__________
Page2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agent in favour of M/s.Anush Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on
23.03.2006 and regd. as Doc. No.2703/2006 to an extent of
26.71 cents declaring not valid which are the subject matter
of both suits in O.S.No.57/2022 and O.S.No.89/2023.
2. According to the petitioner, they are the absolute owner of the property
morefully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition.
According to them, without any notice to them, the above mentioned entries
have been reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate dated 13.11.2025. In such
circumstances, the petitioner had given a representation to the official
respondents on 05.12.2025 requesting them to remove the aforesaid entries in
the Encumbrance Certificate dated 13.11.2025. Since the said representation
has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf
of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed against the
respondents 4 and 5, notice to them in this writ petition is dispensed with by this
Court.
4. No prejudice will be caused to the official respondents if the aforesaid
representation of the petitioner is considered on merits and in accordance with
law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, this writ
__________
Page3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to pass final orders, on
merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation dated
05.12.2025 seeking for cancellation of entries morefully disclosed in the said
representation of the petitioner, after giving due consideration to the supporting
documents produced by the petitioner, and after hearing the objections of all the
necessary parties which includes the respondents 4 and 5, within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court is not
expressing any opinion on the merits of the aforesaid representation of the
petitioner. No Costs.
08-04-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RKM
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, santhome high road,
R.A.Puram, chennai - 600 028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
49/1A, GST Road, Alagesan Nagar, J C K
Nagar, chengalpattu, Ammanambakkam,
Tamilnadu - 603001.
3. The District Registrar,
chengalpet District, Chengalpet - 603 001.
__________
Page4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
RKM
08-04-2026
__________
Page5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
