C J M AROCKIARAJ Vs. M RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the registration made by the first respondent in Document No.1175 of 2007 dated 13.04.2007 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to delete the entry in the record maintained by him.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: the petitioner is represented by his power agent C. J. M. Arockiaraj. The petitioner is a eminent business man. He purchased 1 acre and 24 cents from p. Alagumoopan and P. Kathan under Document No.1247/83; 32 cents from Veerammal and Piliyammal under Document No.1248/83; one acre and 48 cents from Kumarandi, kathamoopan, Mayamoopan and Azhagu under Document No.1250/83; 1 acre and 26 cents from Mayan under Document No.479/84; 44 cents from Santhanam under document No.480/84 and some properties from Periyakaruppa Konar and three others under Document No.781/85, registered in the office of Thirupparangundram registrar. In all, the petitioner acquired 5.5 acres in Survey Nos.201/2a1, 202/1a, 203/8, 204/2b, 204/3b, 204/2a in Patta Nos.600 and 1142 of Vadapzhanji village, Madurai District. Having developed the aforesaid lands, he has been managing the same. The second respondent who is working as a staff in the madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai has been giving disturbance to the petitioner from the very inception due to jealousy, he developed. The petitioner incurred some debt in the Bank and therefore, he decided to sell all his properties. He took out encumbrance certificate from Thirupparangundram registrar Office. But he found to his surprise that the second respondent has encumbered the property by transferring his alleged cultivating tenancy rights to the third respondent for the total consideration of Rs.91,700/-. The second respondent had not taken any property from the petitioner on lease and he does not also possess any document to claim cultivating tenancy right for the lands of the petitioner. But the first respondent has chosen to register the said documents even without verifying the alleged rights of the second respondent as a cultivating tenant. The first and the second respondents colluded together and registered such a deed against the spirit of law. The Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, does not provide for alienation of right of cultivating tenant to a third party for consideration. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent/sub Registrar had acted illegally in registering alleged cultivating tenancy rights of the second respondent, without even verifying the tenor of the claim of the second respondent. It is his further submission that this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction can very well set right the wrong committed by the sub Registrar.