IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.
C. Muniammal - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District, Tiruneveli and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(M.D.) No.22521 of 2022 and W.M.P.(M.D.) No.16708 of 2022
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Writ Petition - Fair Enquiry on Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - S.No.413/1, fraudulent patta No.551 of Padalayaarkulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District - O.S.NO.184 of 2022 - Fair Enquiry directed by the court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to conduct a fair enquiry on the petitioner's representation and to direct the third respondent not to register any further document based on the fraudulent patta No.551 of Padalayaarkulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues: Fraudulent patta, fair enquiry, registration of documents, representation of the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair enquiry on the petitioner's representation and directed the fourth respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a specified time frame.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the direction for a fair enquiry, and no costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
ORDER :
[Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to conduct fair enquiry on the Petitioner’s representation, dated 13.09.2022 by giving a fair opportunity to produce all the relevant documents and consequently direct the third respondent not to register any further document based on the fraudulent patta No.551 of Padalayaarkulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.]
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to conduct fair enquiry on the Petitioner-s representation, dated 13.09.2022 by giving a fair opportunity to produce all the relevant documents and consequently direct the third respondent not to register any further document based on the fraudulent patta No.551 of Padalayaarkulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that she is the descendant of Sundaram Pillai, who purchased the property in S.No.413/1, measuring an extent of 0.43.000 hectares situated in the above village by way of registered sale deed in Doc.No.3206/1918, on the file of Kalakkadu Sub-Registrar Office, Tirunelveli District. The patta for the land in Patta No.621 initially stand in the name of one Nellaiyappa Pillai and after his demise, it was transferred in the name of Velammal, guardian-mother Santhanammal. The said Sundaram Pillai is the great grand-father and Nellaiyappa Pillai is the grand-father of the Petitioner and his wife is Santhanammal and their daughter is Velammal. The said Velammal has a daughter, the Petitioner herein, one son Muthu (brother) and they are the surviving legal heirs in title and possession of the above said property. As the Petitioner-s ancestors are illiterates and residing out of the above said village, the respondents 5 and 6 tried to grab the said property by creating forged documents. The respondents 5 and 6 fraudulently obtained Patta No.561 in the name of Brammanayaga Pillai for the above said land claiming that he is their father, without any valid documents. Now the respondents 5 and 6 are trying to sell the above said property to the third parties and some of the officials are also helping them to register the encumbrances without valid title documents. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 requesting them not to register any documents at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 on the basis of the fraudulent patta No.551 pertaining to the said property and the same was also sent to DIG of Registration and Inspector General of Registration. The said representation was forwarded to the third respondent who in-turn had issued a notice requiring the Petitioner to appear on 12.09.2022 before him and has given the explanation and for the reasons best known to him, he is taking steps to register the document presented by the respondents 5 and 6 after modifying the “0” valuation of guideline value of the above property. Further the Petitioner had also sent a representation to the Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi which was forwarded to the fourth respondent requesting to cancel the fraudulent patta in the name of Brammanayagam and enquiry is still pending before the fourth respondent. Further the power of attorney given by the fifth respondent is residing at Tirunelveli and sixth respondent is residing at Madurai, for the property situated in Tirunelveli District, which itself shows their malafide intention. Hence the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
4. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the above said relief. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 would submit that he presented the document for registration and the same was returned by the Sub-Registrar concerned on 27.09.2022 w
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of conducting a fair enquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sub-registrar must issue notice and conduct enquiry on objections before registering disputed property documents.
Registration authorities lack the legal authority to conduct enquiries into allegations of fraudulent property registrations following judicial invalidation of relevant statutory provisions.
Fraudulent patta issuance via tampering declared invalid; mutation directed based on Supreme Court-confirmed title.
The court affirms the importance of considering representations on property rights while ensuring due process in administrative decisions.
Registering authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes; civil court remedy required.
Section 77A of Registration Act unconstitutional; Sub-Registrar cannot cancel fraudulent deeds, civil court remedy available.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.