HC raps officials for land fraud

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has lambasted the officers who manned the sub-registrar’s office in Poonamallee in 2006 and directed the Inspector-General of Registration in Santhome to conduct a thorough investigation into their ‘fraudulent transactions’  and initiate necessary proceedings, both criminal and departmental, against them. “It is right time that such black sheep in the registration department are dealt with iron hand,” a division bench comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and N Kirubakaran said on  Wednesday.The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 60,000 on the petitioners – P Sundar and five others – to curb the practice of filing fictitious litigations by unscrupulous litigants and to be an eye opener for such persons.Challenging the orders which upheld acquisition of their land measuring 4.06 acres at Chembarambakkam village in Kanchipuram district, the six preferred the present appeal.The land in question was acquired by the government to provide houses to poor Adi Dravidars in 1984. Compensation was also awarded in the same year and was deposited in the sub-registrar’s office in Sriperumbudur. Claiming that they were the second purchasers of the property, Sundar and his wife Gomathi moved the High Court and the single judge had held that once the land was acquired and compensation awarded, there was no scope for reconsideration. Hence, the present appeal.Dismissing it, the bench noted that the property in question had been mortgaged by one Ekambaram, father of third to sixth appellants herein, to one Vadivel Mudaliar as early as in November 1960. It had not yet been cancelled. With the connivance of the officials in the sub-registrar office, Ekambaram had transferred the property in the names of his sons, i e,  third to sixth appellants herein, in 2006. They, in turn, sold the same property to Sundar and his wife Gomathi, the first two appellants. All of them, not owners of the property, had joined together and filed this writ appeal claiming ownership of the property and challenging the acquisition, the Bench further noted.This depicted the poor state of things prevailing in the registrar’s office.