IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.12694 of 2014 A.G.Syed Mohideen ..Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Cuddalore.

2.The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Cuddalore.

3.M.D.Azhagiri ...Respondents Prayer:Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka.6905/ AA1/ 2013 dated

28.3.2014 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For RR1 and 2 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader For RR3 : Mr.K.A.Dhanasekaran ORDER This petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the properties in patta no.89, in T.S.Nos.1714-0.05.0, 17117-69.5.0, 1721- 56.0.0, 1713-1.29.5, 1718-0.54.0, 1720-0.63.0, 1765-1.07.0, situate at Cuddalore O.T., Ward No.2, Block No.26. Originally the petitioner's father have purchased the above said properties and thereafter as a legal heir, he became entitled to the said properties. While so, the 3^rd respondent who is an intermeddler, has filed a petition before the 1^st respondent herein to take action and to cancel the Sale Deed . However, the 1^st respondent vide his proceedings dated 20.02.2013 had clearly found that there was no impersonation and directed the 3^rd respondent herein to have the relief in an appropriate court of law. Though such an order was passed by the 1^st respondent, thereafter the very same 1^st respondent illegally took up a revision petition initiated at the instance of the 3^rd respondent and directed to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under Section 83 of the Indian Registration Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition is filed as against the impugned order passed in terms of Circular No.67, dated 03.01.2011. It is submitted that the said circular itself was withdrawn on 20.10.2017 by the Inspector General of Registration and therefore all the subsequent proceedings based on the said circular has no force and prays for quashment of the impugned order.

4. This Court considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is of the view that though the petitioner have good case, the 1^st respondent has issued direction to initiate prosecution against the petitioner at the instance of the 3^rd respondent and further the 3^rd respondent without availing appropriate appeal remedy before the competent authority, has once again filed revision petition before the original authority / 1^st respondent, which is not sustainable and further, the 1^st respondent has passed the impugned order in terms of Circular 67 dated 03.01.2011, which was already withdrawn by the Inspector General of Registration on 20.10.2017 and thereby, the subsequent impugned order has no force and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 28.3.2014, is set aside and liberty is granted to the 3^rd respondent to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.

09.09.2022 sk To

1.The District Registrar, Cuddalore.

2.The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Cuddalore.

M.DHANDAPANI.,J.

Sk

09.09.2022