Madras High Court
G.Venkatesan vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 15 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 15.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
G.Venkatesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam
Chennai.
2.The District Collector
Madurai District
Madurai.
3.The Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner
Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil
Thiruparankundram,
Madurai.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to
release the original document (Sale deed) executed in favour of the
petitioner and registered as Doc.No.123/2016 dated 21.11.2016 on the file
of the 4th respondent, on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.609/2014 dated 08.02.2018, within the
time frame by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Aravindan
For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai for R1, R2 & R4
Special Government Pleader
Mr.S.Manohar for R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus
directing the fourth respondent to release the sale deed that was executed in
favour of the petitioner and registered as Document No.123/2016 on
21.11.2016 on the file of the 4th respondent.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject property
from one Rajkumar, after conducting a legal due diligence. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
Rajkumar executed a sale deed dated 21.11.2016 in favour of the petitioner
and the same was presented for registration before the 4th respondent. The
further case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has entertained the
document and registered the same as Document No.123/2016. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is refusing to release the
document, which has already been registered, based on the objections made
by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition
has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.
3. Heard Mr.R.Aravindan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents
1, 2 and 4 and Mr.S.Manohar, learned standing counsel for the third
respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent
submitted that the vendor of the petitioner has already filed a writ petition
before this Court in W.P(MD) No.7362/2019, wherein, the order passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
the Commissioner, HR&CE Department dated 07.05.2018 has been put to
challenge. The learned counsel further submitted that the vendor of the
petitioner has also sought for release of the very same document and
therefore, till final orders are passed in W.P.(MD) No.7362/2019, the relief
claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition is unsustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present
case, the document in question has not been kept as a pending document by
the fourth respondent. If it had been kept as pending document based on the
objections made by the third respondent, then, the fourth respondent has to
necessarily conduct an enquiry as per the judgment of the Division Bench in
Sudha Ravikumar and others v. The Special Commissioner and others
reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135 and as per the guidelines given in Paragraph
No.25 of the said judgment. However, where the document has already been
registered, there is no question of retaining the document and the fourth
respondent has to necessarily release the document to the petitioner. The
learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition filed by the vendor of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
the petitioner questioning the order passed by the Commissioner, HR&CE,
is an independent cause of action and it has got nothing to do with the
release of document by the 4th respondent.
6. In the considered view of this Court, once the fourth respondent has
already registered the document and assigned Document No.216/2016 to the
said document, the fourth respondent cannot retain the document thereafter
on the basis of the objections made by the third respondent. In a way the
fourth respondent, who is the registering authority, after the registration of
the sale deed, becomes a functus officio and he lacks the power or
jurisdiction to retain a document, which has already been registered. That
apart, no useful purpose will be served in retaining the document, since the
fourth respondent, after registering the document cannot decide the inter se
rights between the vendor of the petitioner and the third respondent. This is
more so since the fourth respondent becomes a functus officio after the
document is registered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
7. Insofar as the writ petition filed by the vendor of the petitioner in
W.P.(MD) No.7362/2019 is concerned, it is based on an independent cause
of action, wherein, the order passed by the Commissioner, HR&CE, has
been put to challenge. Ultimately the order passed in the said writ petition
may have a bearing on the right over the property as between the petitioner
and the third respondent. However, that has got nothing to do with the
release of a registered document by the fourth respondent to the petitioner.
The petitioner will ultimately get only the rights possessed by his vendor
and nothing more. Therefore, insofar as the right over the property is
concerned, it can be independently decided while considering W.P.(MD) No.
7362/2019 is concerned.
8. The order passed in this writ petition will not in any way prejudice
the rights of the third respondent Temple and all the issues are left open to
be raised in the pending writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.7362/2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and there shall be a
direction to the 4th respondent to release the document registered as
Document No.123/2016 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the
fourth respondent along with a copy of this order. No costs.
15.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
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 copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
To
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam
Chennai.
2.The District Collector
Madurai District
Madurai.
3.The Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner
Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil
Thiruparankundram,
Madurai.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
G.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.5000 of 2021
15.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
