P.I.Ibrahim vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 20035 Mad

                                                                        WP No.5557 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 30-09-2021

                                                     CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                WP No.5557 of 2016


                     P.I.Ibrahim,
                     President,
                     Kovai Anbu Nagar and Arputham Nagar Residential
                        Welfare Association,
                     55-1, 1st Floor, Leek House,
                     Eeshwaran Kovil Street,
                     Kottai,
                     Coimbatore – 641 001.                   ..        Petitioner

                                                       vs.


                     1.The Secretary,
                       State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Chennai.

                     2.The Joint Commissioner,
                       HR&CE, Admin. Department,
                       Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Coimbatore – 641 018.

                     3.The Joint Sub Registrar I,
                       Sub Registrar Office,
                       Coimbatore – 641 018.


                     1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 WP No.5557 of 2016

                     4.Mr.K.A.Mani,
                       S/o.Late Arumugha Thevar,
                       Represented by its Power Agent
                       Mr.R.S.Dhanapal

                     5.Mr.R.S.Dhanapal

                     6.Sri Veera Anjaneyar Swamy Temple,
                       Sri Vyasaraja Mutt,
                       Branch at Coimbatore,
                       No.871, Ranga Gounder Street,
                       Coimbatore – 01.                           ..        Respondents

                                   Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third
                     respondent to register Sale Deeds pertaining to the scheduled property
                     bearing GS.No.172 having an extent of Area measuring 2.09 Acres of land
                     situated at Anupparpalayam Village, Coimbatore.


                                   For Petitioner              : Ms.Lulu Mariam for
                                                                 Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam

                                   For Respondents-1 and 3     : Mr.C.Kathiravan,
                                                                 Government Advocate.

                                   For Respondent-2            : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,
                                                                 Government Advocate.

                                   For Respondents-4 to 6      : No Appearance


                                                        ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the

third respondent to register Sale Deeds pertaining to the scheduled property

bearing G.S.No.172 having an extent of Area measuring 2.09 Acres of land

situated at Anupparpalayam Village, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner states that 240 acres of land situated at

G.S.No.172, situated in Anupparpalayam, Coimbatore South Taluk, has

been divided into plots for residential purpose in 2011 and named as

'Arputham Nagar'.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the land initially

belonged to and purchased from one Mr.Y.S.Ranganatha Rao (Sarvathikari

of Vyasaraja Mutt) situated at Solalai Village in the State of Karnataka.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

reiterated that the said Mr.Y.S.Ranganatha Rao on 17.07.1986 sold an

extent of 2.24 Acres of land in G.S.No.172 situated in Anupparpalayam

Village, Coimbatore in favour of Tvl.K.Arumugham, K.A.Mani and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

Nagarajan under three Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.3776/1986,

3777/1986 and 3778/1986 registered before the Joint Sub Registrar I,

Coimbatore.

5. On the said basis, the petitioner claims that they are entitled for

ownership and therefore, the Sale Deeds presented by them before the Joint

Sub Registrar I, Coimbatore are to be registered. In view of the fact that the

Joint Sub Registrar I, Coimbatore refused to register the documents based

on the letter issued by the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Department, the petitioner is constrained to move

the present writ petition.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Government advocate, appearing on

behalf of the second respondent, disputed the said contention raised on

behalf of the petitioner by stating that the Competent Authority of Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department [hereinafter referred to

as the 'HR&CE Department', in short] raised an objection on the ground that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

the property belongs to the temple under the control of HR&CE

Department.

7. In this regard, an objection letter was sent to the Sub Registrar

concerned, not to register any documents in respect of the subject property.

Such a refusal by the Sub Registrar is recognised under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, 1908. Under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the

Registrar shall refuse to register certain documents and sub clause (ii) of the

said Section, stipulates that the Registering Officer shall refuse to register in

respect of the documents belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose

of any Religious Institution to which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable. Therefore, the objection

submitted by the HR&CE Department is in accordance with the provisions

of the Registration Act and the refusal made by the Sub Registrar is also in

consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner

is bound to establish their title before the Authorities Competent or before

the Competent Civil Court of Law by instituting a civil suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

8. In reliance, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a

judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha

Ravi Kumar and Another vs. The Special Commissioner and

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Department [(2017) 3 CTC 135], wherein in paragraph-26, it has been

observed as under:-

“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 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

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.

(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.”

9. Considering the arguments, it is relevant to consider the letter

sent by the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department in proceedings

dated 04.05.2011, wherein the Joint Commissioner had categorically stated

that as per the revenue records, the subject property belongs to Arulmigu

Veera Anjaneyar Swamy Thirukkoil, Rangey Gowder Street, Coimbatore

City.

10. It is further contended that as per the revenue records, the

name of the temple is found in the Register, more specifically, in respect of

Survey No.172, Town Survey No.7, Ward 41, Block 5, measuring an extent

of 240 Acres, Anupparpalayam Village, Coimbatore Town.

11. When the Joint Commissioner has verified the revenue

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

records and raised an objection for registration of any documents by the Sub

Registrar I, Coimbatore, then the refusal of registration of documents is well

within the power conferred on the Joint Sub Registrar I, Coimbatore under

Section 22-A, sub-clause (ii) of the Registration Act. Thus, there is no

infirmity as such.

12. If the petitioner claims ownership/title in respect of the

subject property, then they have to approach the Competent Civil Court of

Law for the purpose of proving their title/ownership as per the letter of the

joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department. Certain forged or fake

documents were registered in earlier circumstances only to grab the temple

land. Whether those documents registered earlier were forged or fake

documents as recognised with reference to the revenue records and if they

are available with the Temple Authorities and if it is found that the earlier

documents are forged or fake one, then all appropriate actions against the

persons who were involved in such illegalities are to be prosecuted. Beyond

such action, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department has to verify the

records in a thorough manner and thereafter, initiate all appropriate actions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

to restore the temple land as per the provisions of the Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In such process, if necessary, the

petitioner also may be given an opportunity for the purpose of establishing

their case.

13. This being the principles to be followed, the claim of the

petitioner regarding the title/ownership of the subject property, cannot be

validated by filing a writ petition and the petitioner has not established any

prima facie case for the purpose of grant of relief sought for in the present

writ petition.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

30-09-2021 Index : Yes/No.

Internet : Yes/No.

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.

Svn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

To

1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Admin. Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore – 641 018.

3.The Joint Sub Registrar I, Sub Registrar Office, Coimbatore – 641 018.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.5557 of 2016

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP 5557 of 2016

30-09-2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/