Madras High Court
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan vs The Sub Registrar on 19 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
and
M.P(MD).No.2 of 2013
(Through Video Conference)
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Madurai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records
relating to the impugned order dated 23/07/2012 in Na.Ka.No.1237/2012/A1
________
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequentially
directing the first respondent to register the sale deeds in respect of the
property measuring 0.40.50 hectares in Survey No.10/2A and 0.52.50
hectares in Survey No.10/2B, Karisalpatti Village, Thirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings
of the second respondent dated 23.07.2012 wherein the second respondent
has directed the first respondent to cancel the sale deed executed with respect
to the properties that have been shown in the impugned proceedings and not
permit any documents to be presented for registration pertaining to those
properties.
2. Heard Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
respondents.
3. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has filed various
documents right from the year 1921 onwards and is claiming a right and title
over the property. According to the petitioner, the second respondent cannot
merely issue a letter and direct the first respondent to cancel the earlier
documents. This claim made by the petitioner is valid. The first respondent
does not have any powers to cancel a registered document and the same can
only be done by a competent Civil Court. Therefore there is no question of
the first respondent complying with the directions given by the second
respondent and cancelling the documents which have already been
registered. Therefore, the first portion of the impugned order directing for
cancellation of the earlier registered documents, is unsustainable in law.
4. Insofar as the second portion of the impugned order is concerned,
the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi
Kumar and another Vs, The Special Commissioner and Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others,
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135 will directly apply to the facts of the present
case. The relevant portion of the judgment 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.
(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
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
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.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. No costs.”
5. In view of the above, as and when any document is submitted for
registration, an enquiry shall be conducted by the first respondent in
accordance with the directions given by the Division Bench and a decision
shall be taken.
6. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.07.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
PJL
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 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
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Madurai.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
A.Sakthi @ Natarajan v. The Sub Registrar
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
PJL
PRE-DELIVERY
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.4999 of 2013
19.07.2021
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
