K.B.Kavitha v. The Inspector General of Registration

ORDER The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.05.2026, whereby second respondent has passed an order, rejecting petitioners' request for registration of petitioners' apartment owners association comprising of 11 dwelling residential units on the premise that authorisation is only for 10 dwelling units and the 10th dwelling unit was converted into two units and such conversion is without any authorisation, which is impermissible in terms of Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Rules, 2024.

¶2The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 29.05.2026 reads as under: Page3 of 5

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he is not the owner of 11th apartment, which has been found to be unauthorized.

¶4To a repeated question as to whether petitioners have any right, title or interest over 11th apartment, which is the subject matter of controversy insofar as the impugned order is concerned, petitioners were not able to point out anything except to state that they are members of the association and they would want all the dwelling units of the association to be represented. If the owner of the 11th apartment, which is found to be not authorised, has not even challenged the impugned proceedings, this Court doubts whether it would be open for petitioners, who admittedly have no right, title or interest over the 11th apartment to even institute this writ petition.

¶5It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that they have come forward with this writ petition only in view of the fact that owner of 11th apartment resides outside India and is not unable to be contacted. Petitioners are admittedly not power of attorney holders nor are they authorised in any manner by owner of 11th apartment.

¶6To a pointed question as to whether they are trying to assert the rights of the owner of 11th apartment, he would answer in the affirmative. Page4 of 5

¶7This Court finds that in the absence of any authorisation whatsoever from the owner of 11th apartment, filing of this writ petition by petitioners without any authorisation is clearly impermissible.

¶8In view of the above, writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 07-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MRN To

¶1The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mulima Nagar, Madavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.

¶2The District Registrar (Chennai Central) District Registrar Office for Chennai (Central) No 182 Near Clock Tower, Bharati Salai, Pycorfts Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Page5 of 5

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. MRN 07-07-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ 1. K.B.Kavitha 2. Thasim Shabeeba ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road, Mulima Nagar, Madavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028. 2. The District Registrar (Chennai Central), District Registrar office for Chennai (Central), No 182 Near Clock Tower, Bharati Salai, Pycorfts Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned relating to impugned proceedings of second respondent in Na.Ka. No.4025/E2/ 2026 dated 29.05.2026 quash the same and consequently direct second respondent to receive, accept and register petitioners Form - A Declaration dated 28.08.2025 by recognising and including all existing 11 apartment owners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.M.Mrithun Jayan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Sidhartha Vishnu, Government Counsel