Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1655 (MAD)

A. Kaliyamoorthy v. Sub Registrar, Veppanthattai

2014-06-24

S.RAJESWARAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 16.8.2012 made in pending document No.26/12 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to complete the process of registration of the petitioner's sale deed dated 14.8.2012 in respect of the property measuring an extent of 1,300 sq. ft., comprised in R.S.No.468/1, Udumbiyam Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that one Ramasamy Gounder, son of Palanivel Gounder had purchased an extent of 4.72 acres comprised in R.S.No.468/1, Udumbiyam Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District through a sale deed dated 4.6.2001, registered as document No.954 of 2001, on the file of the first respondent. Thereafter, the said Ramasamy Gounder and his son Venkatesh had appointed the second respondent as their power of attorney holder under a registered document dated 28.9.2010 to deal with the subject matter of properties. Accordingly, the second respondent executed number of sale deeds in favour of third parties as the power agent of the original owner Ramasamy Gounder and his son R.Venkatesh. The second respondent has executed one of such sale deed dated 29.9.2011 in the name of the petitioner herein and it was presented for registration before the first respondent, but it was returned by the first respondent in pursuance of an order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Tahsildar. Consequent upon that, the first respondent has passed an order dated 29.9.2011, informing the petitioner that the lands in S.No.468/1, Udumbiyam Village mentioned in the sale deed presented for registration has been included in the list of Panchami lands situated within the limits of Udumbiyam Village Administrative Office and it cannot be entertained for registration. Challenging the above order, the second respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25518 of 2011. The said writ petition viz., W.P.No.25518 of 2011 was heard finally on 12.4.2012 and after hearing both sides, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside and the first respondent was directed to register the document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules framed thereunder. Thereafter, on the basis of that order passed by this Court, the first respondent received the document for registration, but no action was taken thereafter. Thereafter, on the basis of that order passed by this Court, the first respondent received the document for registration, but no action was taken thereafter. Finally, the impugned order has been passed stating that it has a zero value and therefore, it cannot be registered. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. I have gone through the affidavit and documents available on record. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the property in question has gone through number of transactions right from 1974 and sale deeds have been registered by the Registering Authority for a value executed by Thiru Ramasamy Gounder in favour of third parties, rejecting the said registration by the impugned order holding that it has got a zero value, can never be sustained both on facts and in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention pertaining to the same document, various sale deeds were transacted and registered with the Registering Authority. If that be so, the rejection and refusal to register the document submitted by the petitioner arising out of the same survey number, would vitiate the order impugned. Moreover, there is no basis whatsoever for the Registering Authority to state that this land is not suitable for registration as it has zero value. Further, the registration was refused earlier in respect of the same land on the ground that the lands are Panchami lands and this Court in W.P.No.25518 of 2011 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Registering Authority. While so, once again the Registering Authority has passed an order refusing to register it holding that it has got a zero value. Therefore, I find that the Registrar has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. 5. Therefore, the order of the respondent suffers from infirmity and illegality, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. Therefore, I find that the Registrar has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. 5. Therefore, the order of the respondent suffers from infirmity and illegality, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Registering Authority is directed to register the petitioner's document in respect of the property, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.