1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.442 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 A.Marimuthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road,Chennai 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, (Registration), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Nanguneri Sub Registry, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter of the 1st respondent communicated by the 3rd respondent in No.62654/E1/09 dated 10.12.2009 insofar as relating to the petitioner's property and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajkumar Sen For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ petition seeking to challenge an inter office communication dated 10.12.2009 sent by the 1st respondent Inspector General of Registration to all the subordinates including the DIG of Registration in the District Registrar in all the districts. 2.In the said communication, it was brought to the notice of the officers that any property, which was owned by Kalaimagal Sabha, the same cannot be registered in case of any sale transaction, without obtaining no objection from Official Receiver appointed by the High Court. 3.In this contest a reference was made to the order passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999. The Districts referred to therein as many as 17 districts. It is the case of the petitioner that he was validly purchased the land and by the impugned communication, it has been unnecessarily put to difficulties either selling the land or purchasing further land and hence, the impugned order should be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.When the matter came up on 12.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, the third respondent Sub Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.04.2011. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said Kalaimagal Sabha having borrowed public fund. As they could not repay the amount to the depositors, they took up the matter and ultimately the matter was seized by the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999 a Joint Receivers have been appointed by the High Court. The entire properties have been monitors by the Official Receiver appointed. Orders are obtained from the High Court from time to time. 5.It is pursuant to the interim direction given in a memo Nos.307 and 308 in W.P.No.514 of 1999, the impugned circular came to be issued by the 1st respondent and therefore, the 1st respondent has to obey the orders of this Court and in respect of the petitioner’s transactions, with reference to certain properties, covered by various documents referred to by him, it is stated that the petitioner has purchased the property without verifying the encumbrance of the said property and his application to the Official Receiver was also rejected and communicated to him on 06.01.2011. 6.A reference was also made to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5967 of 2010 in N.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others wherein similar case was rejected. 7.In view of the above, the Writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, (Registration), Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Nanguneri Sub Registry,Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. +1cc to Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader, SR.No.37564 W.P.(MD)No.442 of 2011 01.11.2011 nbj SMA/16.11.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/