Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Madras High Court
C.Doorvasan vs The Sub-Registrar on 16 April, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:16.4.2008

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.P.NO.8046 OF 1999 


C.Doorvasan							..Petitioner

	vs

1.The Sub-Registrar
Sub-Registrar Office
Palacode

2.The District Registrar(Inspection)
Krishnagiri

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration
Salem

4.The Inspector General of Registration
Chennai 28							..Respondents

	Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to dispose of the petitioner's Advocate's notice dated 7.9.1998 and 8.12.1998.
			for petitioners : Mr.K.Balachandran

			for respondent  : Mr.N.Senthilkumar,G.A.,

					........

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner has submitted a partition deed for registration before the first respondent-the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Palacode, the same was referred for under valuation and ultimately the amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded towards the amount of under valuation on 23.12.1997 and the petitioner has also paid the said amount. After such payment, the first respondent has returned the document having duly registered to the petitioner. On perusal of the document the petitioner came to know that there were some corrections in respect of a portion regarding locker in State Bank, Marandahalli. That apart, some of the pages in the documents were also missing. Suspecting that the same has been done by the first respondent in collusion with one Mrs.Aruna Sivakumar, the petitioner has issued a legal notice to the first and second respondents on 7.9.1998 to rectify the defects or mistake. Another legal notice was also issued by the petitioner on 8.12.1998 and in spite of the same the first and second respondents have not taken any steps for the purpose of rectification of the error crept in the registered document. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for a direction to dispose of the petitioner's notice dated 7.9.1998 and 8.12.1998.

3. Considering the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, after hearing both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Registrar (Inspection) Krishnagiri-the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 7.9.1998 followed by subsequent representation dated 8.12.1998 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No costs.

sal To

1.The Sub-Registrar Sub-Registrar Office Palacode

2.The District Registrar(Inspection) Krishnagiri

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Salem

4.The Inspector General of Registration Chennai 28