Jothi.K vs. The Inspector General Of Registration

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the Trust had previously filed W.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2015 seeking reconveyance of the land acquired in 1983, and this petition was dismissed. Furthermore, the Trust had also filed LAOP.No.282 of 1980 for enhancement of compensation, and the enhanced compensation had been paid. Therefore, the Court concluded that the proceedings were completed, and the land had vested with the Government. The Court found that the Trustee had suppressed these facts and sold the property to the petitioner's vendor, from whom the petitioner purchased it. Since the title had already vested with the Government, the entry restricting further alienation based on alleged forged documents, which did not convey any title to subsequent purchasers, did not require interference. The Court held that the orders of the Registration Department were justified.

Facts

The petitioner, K. Jothi, purchased land in Survey No. 192, Thanakkankulam Village, Madurai District, on August 7, 2020. This land was previously owned by Sadhu Seva Shree Vivekananda Swamigal Trust. The Trust had executed a sale deed in favor of one Palani on January 18, 2010. The petitioner's challenge is against an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration (second respondent), which confirmed an order by the District Registrar (Administration) (third respondent). The impugned orders declared a subsequent transaction fraudulent and restricted further alienation entries in the objection book. The basis for these orders was that the property had been acquired by the government in 1983, and enhanced compensation had been paid, meaning the land had vested with the government. The Trust had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2015) for reconveyance of the acquired land, which was dismissed on August 7, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable to quash the orders of the Registration Department confirming the restriction on further alienation of property, considering the land has vested with the Government due to acquisition proceedings initiated in 1983 and compensation paid. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner seeks to quash the orders of the Registration Department, arguing that the subsequent transactions were fraudulent and that no further entries should be made in the objection book based on the objections raised by respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner's case is based on the sale deeds executed in their favor. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that the Trust itself had filed a writ petition for reconveyance of the acquired land, which was dismissed. They contended that since compensation for the acquisition had already been paid and the land vested with the Government, any sale by the Trustee thereafter could not convey title. They relied on the fact that the Trust had earlier sought enhancement of compensation in LAOP.No.282 of 1980, which was also completed and compensation paid.