Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.P.RAMACHANDRAN versus THE SUB REGISTRAR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.P.Ramachandran v. The Sub Registrar - WRIT PETITION (MD) No.3023 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1243 (2 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 02/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.3023 of 2007

1. S.P.Ramachandran

2. Minor.Gokulnath

rep.through his father and guardian S.R.Gopalakrishnan 3. Tmt.S.Vanaja

4. Tmt.Kanjanamala ... Petitioners

Vs.

The Sub Registrar

Thamaraippatti (Camp) Chittampatti,

Othakadai,

Madurai. ... Respondent

The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioners : Mr.S.Subbiah

For respondent : Mr.Palaramasamy, Spl.G.P.

:ORDER



The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order, dated 06.03.2007, passed in the proceedings Na.Ka.No.76/2007, dated 06.03.2007, on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to register the documents in respect of lands bearing R.S.Nos.95/2A, 95/2B and 97/4 in Rajakambeeram Village, Madurai North Taluk, Thamaraipati Sub-District, Madurai North, Madurai District within a time frame.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondent.

3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent have submitted that the issues involved in the present writ petition are covered by the decisions of this Court in W.P.Nos.31589 of 2002, reported in 2003-1-L.W.562, W.P.No.28557 to 28564 of 2003, W.P.No.2351 of 2006 and W.P.No.46536 of 2006.

4.It is also submitted that this Court has passed orders in the above mentioned writ petitions in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS V. BASANT NAHATA, reported in (2005 (4) CTC 606), wherein it was held that Section 22-A of the Registration Act, introducing the provision for Prohibition of Registration of documents opposed to public policy, to be unconstitutional and invalid. Following the decision of the Supreme Court , this Court had also passed orders in W.A.No.1923 of 2005 and W.P.No.7237 of 2006.

In view of the above orders, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the Sale Deed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without demanding any additional stamp duty.

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. M.JAICHANDREN.J

To

The Sub Registrar

Thamaraippatti (Camp) Chittampatti,

Othakadai,

Madurai.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.