Madras High Court
B.Mala vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 September, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.14366 of 2021
B.Mala ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai.
2. The District Registrar,
Thiruchirappalli District.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam,
Thiruchirappalli District.
4. The Joint Commissioner,
Sri Renganatha Swamy Temple,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department,
Srirangam, Thiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the
file of the third respondent pertaining to its impugned Refusal Check Slip
dated 03.09.2021 and to quash the same and consequently direct the third
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
respondent to register the sale deed dated 03.09.2021 executed in favour
of the petitioner within a stipulated period that may be fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan,
Counsel for the State for R1 to R3
Mr.M.Saravanan, for R4
ORDER
The petitioner assails a refusal check slip dated 03.09.2021 by
which the third respondent refused to register the document presented for
registration by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that she purchased the property
admeasuring 2280 square feet out of 4.97 acres in T.S.No.1784/B2 and
T.S.No.1784/B3 at Seenivasa Nagar North Extension, New Ward No.B,
Block No.32, Srirangam Municipal 2nd Ward, Vellithirumutham Village,
Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
3. Upon presentation of the sale deed in respect of the relevant
purchase, the third respondent refused to register the same and issued a
refusal check slip dated 03.09.2021.
4. The petitioner states that the relevant property is a house site in
respect of which layout approval was issued by the authority concerned.
The proceedings dated 07.05.1987 of the Director of Town and Country
Planning and the proceedings dated 02.06.1998 of the Municipal
Corporation of Srirangam are cited in this regard. In addition, the
petitioner relies upon the registration of the parent document on
25.08.1988. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent admittedly
does not have the title document relating to the property as evidenced by
the communication dated 23.03.2020, which was received under the
Right to Information Act, 2005.
5. As regards the impugned refusal check slip, the petitioner states
that the order is completely unreasoned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
6. Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan, learned counsel for the State, accepts
notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Saravanan, learned
Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the fourth respondent.
Mr.Saravanan points out that the fourth respondent is in possession of the
relevant title document bearing T.D.No.1027. Therefore, he states that the
fourth respondent should be provided an opportunity to produce the title
document. He also contends that the patta in relation to the relevant
property stands in the name of the fourth respondent. In addition, he
points out that the law with regard to inquiries in relation to matters
coming within the ambit of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908
was laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment
reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135 (Sudha Ravi Kumar v. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, Chennai). Therefore, he submits that the said
principles should be adhered to.
7. Upon perusal of the impugned refusal check slip, it is evident
that the reasons for refusal are generic and encompass all the grounds for
refusal to register under Section 22-A(1). The said order does not satisfy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
the minimum requirements for a reasoned order. Under the Registration
Act 1908, if a registering authority refuses to register a document, cogent
reasons are required to be indicated in that regard. The impugned order
clearly does not meet such requirement. Accordingly, the impugned order
is quashed.
8. Nevertheless, in view of the rival claims in respect of the
property in question, the matter is remitted for reconsideration by the
third respondent. For such purpose, the petitioner shall, if so intended,
resubmit the relevant document for registration within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt
thereof, the third respondent is directed to conduct an inquiry by
providing a reasonable opportunity to the parties to the relevant
document as well as the fourth respondent herein. Upon conclusion of
such inquiry, the third respondent is directed to issue a reasoned order by
taking into account the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
which was reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135. Such reasoned order shall be
issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such
resubmitted document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
9. W.P(MD).No.17531 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms
without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P(MD).No.
14366 of 2021 is closed.
29.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai.
2. The District Registrar,
Thiruchirappalli District.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam,
Thiruchirappalli District.
4. The Joint Commissioner,
Sri Renganatha Swamy Temple,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department,
Srirangam, Thiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
pkn
W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2021
29.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
