W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.18405 of 2026 A.Mani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. 3.K.L.S.Shanmugam 4.Murugammal 5.Seemaisamy 6.Velmurugan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings in Moo.Mu.No.4187/E1/2025 dated 22.05.2026 and consequently directing the first and second respondents to cancel the document namely, General Power of Attorney Deed dated 19.07.2004 bearing Document No.93 of 2004 thereby audaciously stating and _____________ Page No. 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 showing the petitioner as a deed person though he is well alive by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 besides directing the first respondent to prosecute the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the manner known to law as contemplated under Section 82 of the Registration Act, within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For R1 and R2 : Ms.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar Government Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner is before this Court for the second time. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21630 of 2025 for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 therein namely, the District Registrar (Administration), Sivagangai and the Sub Registrar, Manamaudrai, who are arrayed as the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to conduct an enquiry under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 pursuant to the petition made by the petitioner dated 26.06.2023 and legal notice dated 26.06.2023 relating to the registration of alleged fraudulent General Power of Attorney Deed dated 19.07.2004 registered as Document No.93 of 2004, which is said to have been allegedly executed by the petitioner's wife, namely, the fourth respondent herein. along with the fifth respondent in favour of the third respondent. The said document is said to have been allegedly prepared by the sixth respondent. _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 2. On the strength of the aforesaid Power of Attorney, the lands in Survey No.255/2, measuring an extent of 4 Acres 65 Cents and Survey No.225/1 measuring an extent of 4 Acres 31 Cents has been further alienated. The impugned order passed by the first respondent pursuant to the said order of the writ court, dated 06.08.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.21630 of 2025 records that a fraud has been committed by taking advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioner's wife, namely, the fourth respondent by recording as if the petitioner had already pre-deceased. However, at the same time, the impugned order also records that the issue is now ceased of in the hands of the Committee headed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.M.Lodha, Judge (Retd.), Supreme Court of India, and learned District Judge Mr.R.S.Virk (Retd.) and therefore, since the matter is ceased of by the committee, they are unable to proceed further. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has deliberately also ignored the fact that another parcel of the land in Survey No.225/1. measuring an extent of 4 Acres 31 Cents in the same Village, namely, Mayali Village, Puliyangulam Group, Sivagangai District, was also subject matter of the aforesaid Power of Attorney, dated 19.07.2004 registered as Document No.93 / 2004, _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 pursuant to which, several alienations have been made and public have been cheated. Since there is a prima facie indication that fraud has been committed on the petitioner by taking advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioner's wife, namely, the fourth respondent herein, I direct the first respondent to get suitable clarification from the above said Committee to proceed further with the prosecution of the persons named in the complaint given by the petitioner. 4. Having found that prima facie guilty of the fabrication of the Power of Attorney, the official respondents shall take appropriate permission from the Committee and proceed in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of such approval. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. NCC : Yes / No 01.07.2026 smn2 _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 To 1.The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. _____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 C.SARAVANAN , J. smn2 W.P.(MD) No.18405 of 2026 01.07.2026 _____________ Page No. 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis