BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.13020 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.11560 of 2024 Santhosh ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar, Karur District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Pukazhoor Taluk, Karur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Karur.

(R.3 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 20.06.2024) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in RFL/Velauthapalayam/15/2024 dated 06.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 06.06.2024 executed by the petitioner qua the land comprised in S.No.550/1, Plot Nos.47, 48 and 51 to an extent of 12.39 cents and other house plots mentioned in the settlement deed in Doc.No.2296/2022 dated 22.12.2022 registered on the file of Velayudhampalayam Sub-Registrar Office, Karur District within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R.3

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner is the son of one Murugan. The petitioner's father executed settlement deed dated 22.12.2022 in favour of the petitioner settling the petition mentioned property. It was also duly registered. The petitioner now wants to deal with the property. He is unable to do so on account of the communication sent by the third respondent to the registering authority. When the petitioner presented a sale deed executed in favour of one Palanisamy, registration was refused and refusal check slip was also issued to that effect. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for. He pointed out that Crime No.1 of 2023 registered on the file of EOW, Karur was registered on 30.03.2023 and whereas the settlement deed was executed in his favour by his father on 22.12.2022 itself. He also submitted that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to issue any communication to restrain the registering authority from registering any document. He pointed out that the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2015 in W.P(MD)No.11221 of 2015. He also pointed out that I had followed the said order in more than one case. Copy of the order dated 04.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No. 24681 of 2023 (P.Jeyachandran Vs The District Registrar, Karur District, Karur & Others) was produced before me.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the conduct of the respondents is clearly illegal and that this Court ought to interfere in the matter.

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent called upon this Court to bear in mind the equities obtaining in this case and pass an appropriate order in public interest.

6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Copy of the FIR in Crime No.1 of 2023 registered on the file of the third respondent has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is seen there from that it was registered on 30.03.2023. The petitioner's father Murugan is figuring as ninth accused. No doubt the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner is prior in point of time. There is a gap of three months between the execution of the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and r