R RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs to the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD Mrs. S.V. Jayadharini, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. M. Mahalingam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos, 1 to 4, Mr. R. Sivakumar Kennedy for the fifth respondent and Mr. Sree Balaji for Mr, M. Sathianarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.

(3.) ACCORDING to the said respondents, the instructions contained in the encumbrance certificate form is also not out of context because it has been clearly stated at the bottom for the certificate that the department is not responsible for any error or omission found in the encumbrance certificate. It is admitted by the third respondent that the entry relating to the sale by the 5th respondent in favour of the 6th respondent has been omitted by the office of the 4th respondent. The omission of one entry in the encumbrance certificate issued by one of the respondent is not an act of negligence or dereliction of duty and it is due to oversight and heavy work. The complaint that the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner is kept pending without registration is being disputed by the respondents and it is contended that there are no merits.