High court of madras - order on the circular of ig registrar

Thank you Mr. Balaji.

                                     When the U Section concerned with the investigations in the IGR office is contacted, they plead ignorance of this order. In my case they have not nullified the sale deed with forged signatures citing Stay order from the Madras High Court. They want to use this circular to bolster their position to annul sale deeds with an intention to settle personal scores, other wise cancel all sale deeds puportedly registered during all periods including 2001 to 2006 as well. You cannot treat the sale deeds from 2001 to 2006 any differently than the ones from 2006 to 2011. Please check the attached sale deed and post it online, I will send additional documents to build a case in this forum for discussion. In the attached document, two signatures are forged.

Thank you for posting this order.

Dear Mr. Balaji,

                           Sorry to hear that you are fighting your case for the past six years or so. I posted a earlier sale deed with two forged signatures, now I am posting another sale deed that was registered to cover up the forgery from the sale deed from the year 2004. Compare the signatures from the 2004 document and the one attached herewith. In the next posting I will post the responses from the Govt pertaining to the allegation of forgery.

Signatures don't match, even if the Govt officials is abetting the criminal vendors to give a false testimony in writing that both the signatures are theirs, thereby committing perjury, I don't know if that concept exists in India at all. While the Registration act gives the powers to the Registrar, (the crook in my case) as good as a court, why and how can he not pursue perjury? Lying under oath. Why a person will sell the same land twice? I will fight, regardless of how much the criminals can bribe all they want to the Registrar!

Hi,

is the order valid in chennai? the registration department officials are refusing to cancel the fradulent sale deeds and are telling that they can only conduct an inquiry. They are saying that the stay has been removed only in madurai alowing the registration department to cancel fradulent sale deeds.

The IG Registration continues to state that there is a stay order even as of today. We are all puzzled, when it was vacated in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, wouldn't that apply to all over the state or is that order specify a district wise application. It is funny. How can the vacation of the stay order be applicable to only Madurai and not Chennai? Something is not adding up. Can anyone who has knowledge on this matter add any details regarding this please..

Sir,

The Registration department officials say that this order is applicable for madurai only and as a few more cases are pending in Hon'ble High Court of Madras they cannot cancel the fradulent sale deeds

Dear sirs,

We got a court order cancelling the fradulent registrations.

Even with this court order, the registration departments are not ready to cancel. They are just saying that they will enquire into the fraud acts. Even after we complained to land grabbing cell, they are not acting on this. Looks like the opponents have fully blocked all these  places from where we were expecting to get justice.

Could you please suggest what can we do in this situation?

Thanks,

CJ

Million Dollar Questions...

1) Is the Circular 67 issued by IG of Registration by November 2011 is in practice or not..?

2) If the District Registrar enquires and finds that the sale deed has been executed by forgery  and impersonation, what steps does the Registration department to take..?

3) Land Grabbers seem openly demand hefty sum to cancel the registration, this is even after they are found guilty in Registration and Police departments. If there is no punishments for land grabbers then how do we expect these to get reduced..?

4) It's all Selffishness, none of case of land grabbing seem to have gone to the root and arrested the people who are helping to prepare fake and fraudulent documents. What is to be done so that Police get to the root of the cause..?

And to add,

Is orders executed by Madras High Court of Madurai Bench not applicable for Chennai..?

I have seen interesting postings that surely will help the community in large. I wish I knew about this site before.

Question: My Father is having a partition deed on a stamped signed by all the three brothers on the division of joint ancestor property in Andhra Pradesh.

1. Recently, I approached the Tahsildar of the Mandal to honor the partition deed. Sri Tahsildar responded that the partitioned deed is considered unregistered hence nothing can be done. Sri Tahsildar advised to go to Civil Court. Any Suggestions ?

2. I approached the Sub-Registrar who handles this Mandal with all the supporting documents. Sri Sub-Registrar informed me that the document cannot be registered unless the other two brothers show up. The truth of the fact is that two brothers are not going to show up at the registrar office and I mentioned the same to Sri Sub-Registrar.  In fact they collected money from my Father to pay towards land debts, so I also submitted those NOC. Sri Sub-Registrar re-iterated that partition deed cannot be registered even if it is on the stamped paper. Any Suggestions ?

Curcular No. 67 issued by the Inspector General of Registration is not dead. This circular empowers district registrars to investigate and annul fraudulent sale/transfer deeds and registrations. I found that in March 2016, a writ petition was heard in the high court related to this. The petitioner complained about inaction from the registrar (South Chennai, Pallavaram) on a land grabbing situation on which the registrar was not acting. The court directed the registrar to investigate and issue appropriate orders within 12 weeks. The basis of this court directive was circular No. 67. Case link: 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78640761/

Those who are facing inaction from the registrar's office can take this approach of filing a writ petition. The petition is not a case to decide the title dispute in court but to make the registrar act using powers bestowed under Circular No. 67.