Madras High Court
Masilamani vs The Sub Registrar on 20 April, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
Masilamani .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
(Document Registration Department)
Melakarur,
Karur District. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.07.2020 passed by the
respondent and quash the same and consequently issue a direction to the
respondent to register the settlement deed dated 29.07.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan,
for Mr.T.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan,
Government Advocate.
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal
check slip issued by the respondent on 29.07.2020, wherein the respondent
refused to enter the settlement deed that was presented for registration on
29.07.2020.
2. Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel for Mr.T.Balakrishnan,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan,
learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. The petitioner claims absolute right over the subject property
based on the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1994. According to the
petitioner, there is no other rival claimant insofar as the subject property is
concerned. The respondent has mechanically issued refusal check slip even
without mentioning the exact reason as to why the document is not
entertained for registration. The impugned refusal check slip is liable to be
quashed on that ground alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent submitted that the property in question belongs to a temple, as
per the information uploaded by HR & CE Department in their website. A
counter to that effect has also been filed by the respondent.
5. If there is a rival claim made by any temple, this Court has
repeatedly held that the respondent will have to conduct an enquiry and
take a decision. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner and Others reported in 2017 (3) CTC
135. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“25. In view of the above discussions, all the writ
petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside
with the following directions:
(i) The registering authority before whom the
document has been presented shall cause service of notice
on the parties to the deeds and also to the objector /
religious institution, hold summary enquiry, hear the parties
and then either register or refuse to register the document
by passing an order having regard to the relevant facts as
indicated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register any
document by accepting the objections raised under Section
22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a
statutory appeal under the Act.
(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22-A of
the Act by the religious institution are rejected and the
document is registered, the remedy for the religious
institution is to either approach this Court by way of a writ
petition seeking cancellation of the registration or for any
other relief or to approach the civil Court for declaration of
the title and for other consequential reliefs.
(iv) If the registering authority refuses to register the
document acting on the objections raised by a religious
institution under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the
parties to the deed will be at liberty to straightaway
approach the Civil Court for declaration of title and other
relief without availing the opportunity for filing a statutory
appeal.
(v) We further direct that if the deed has already been
registered without there being any objection by the religious
institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the document shall
be returned to the parties concerned leaving it open for the
religious institution to approach either the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Civil
Court for appropriate relief as indicated above. At any rate,
the registering authority shall not withhold the deed which
has already been registered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. No costs.”
6. In view of the above, the impugned refusal check slip dated
29.07.2020, issued by the respondent is hereby quashed. The respondent is
directed to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench, which
has been referred supra and take a decision with regard to the registration of
the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, within a period of six (6)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. This Writ Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
20.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsm
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
Note : pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
vsm
To
The Sub Registrar,
(Document Registration Department)
Melakarur,
Karur District.
W.P.(MD)No.15902 of 2020
20.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
