Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
E.C.Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
Inspector General Of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For the Respondent(s):Mr.P.Harish Govt.Advocate
Court directs authorities to consider representation for correcting erroneous zero guideline value fixation within time frame.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the erroneous fixation of guideline value as zero for property in Survey No.275/2A at Kaniyamoor Village, Kallakurichi District, seeking correction and restoration of correct guideline value and ownership entries in Registration Department records. A representation dated 27.03.2026 was submitted but remained unaddressed. The court found no prejudice to respondents in considering the representation on merits with supporting documents. The key issue was the failure to process the petitioner's representation for correcting the guideline value error. The court directed consideration without expressing opinion on merits, emphasizing procedural fairness and timely disposal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the second respondent to pass final orders within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges zero guideline value fixation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. notice accepted; no prejudice in considering representation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direct consideration within 12 weeks; petition disposed. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to correct the erroneous fixation of guideline value as “Zero” in respect of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition and to restore the correct guideline value and ownership entries in the records of the Registration Department within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner had given a representation on 27.03.2026 to the respondents for the aforesaid purpose. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, this writ petition has been filed.
3. Mr. P. Harish, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. No prejudice would be caused to the second respondent if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law after giving due consideration to the supporting documents filed by the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
5. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the second respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 27.03.2026, seeking for correct fixation of the guideline value for the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due consideration to the supporting documents filed by the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
