Madras High Court
S. Renukadevi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 July, 2021
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
S. Renukadevi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai- 600 028
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Thiruporur,
Chengalpet.
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to admit and
register the sale deed dated 14.07.2021 executed by the petitioner and her
family members in favour of Sundeep Devarajan with respect to vacant land
comprised in Survey No.168/3E1A1A1C2A measuring an extent of 4.17.5
Hec.(10.30 Acres) bearing Patta No.467, situated No.108, Pattipulam
Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpet District.
For petitioner ... Mr V.P. Senguttuvel
For respondents ... Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd
respondent to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in
Survey No.168/3E1A1A1C2A, Pattipulam village, Thiruporur Taluk,
chengalpet District, to an extent of 4.17.5 Hec. (10.30 Acres). It is a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
ancestral property of his father one Krishtappa Naicker and after the death
of his father, she become the absolute owner of the property. Now, the
petitioner wants to sell the property in favour of the third parties and also
executed a sale deed in favour of one Sundeep Devarajan. When they
approached the 2nd respondent for registration, the 2nd respondent refused
to register the same on the ground that there is an objection by the 3rd
respondent/H.R & C.E. Department. Hence, the present writ petition has
been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
property is an ancestral property of the petitioner. The petitioner and her
family members are in possession and enjoyment of the property for more
than 30 years, so far no claim has been made by the H.R. & C.E.
Department claiming right over the property. Earlier, a sale agreement
executed by the petitioner is also registered by the same Sub-Registrar. Now,
when the petitioner wants to register the sale deed, suddenly, the H.R. &
C.E. Department is raising objection claiming title over the property.
According to the petitioner, if at all there is objection, under Section 22-A of
the Registration Act, the 2nd respondent has to conduct enquiry and give
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
opportunity to the petitioner as well as the H.R & C.E. Department to prove
the title. Without doing so, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to register thel
same. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha
Ravi and another /Vs/ The Special Commissioner and Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others
reported in 2017(3) CTC 135.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
would submit that since the land belongs to the H.R. & C.E. Department,
they raised objection before the Sub-Registrar. Since the objection is
pending with the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent refused
to register the same.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on records carefully.
6. The 2nd respondent/Sub-Registrar refused to register the document
only on the ground that there is an objection raised by the H.R. & C.E.
Department under Section 22-A of the Act, when the H.R. & C.E.
Department raised any objection, the Sub-Registrar has to conduct an
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the H.R. & C.E.
Department to establish the title over the property, considering the same, he
can either register the document or refuse to register the same. Without
conducting any enquiry, the 2nd respondent/sub-Registrar cannot simply
refused to register the document. In this aspect, the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Sudha Ravi and another /Vs/ The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department and others reported in 2017(3) CTC 135, held
as follows:
"26. 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.
(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register
any document by accepting the objections raised under
Section22-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
hte 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 o f 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 straight away approach the Civil Court for
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
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. "
and the above said judgment has been followed by this Court in W.P.11338
of 2021.
7. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to
conduct enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 3rd
respondent/H.R. & C.E Department and affording them an opportunity of
hearing and pass suitable orders either accepting the document for
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
registration or refusing the same. The above exercise shall be completed
within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
26.07.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
mrp
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai- 600 028
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Thiruporur,
Chengalpet.
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No.15377 of 2021
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp
W.P. No. 15377 of 2021
26.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
