Madras High Court
M.Sundar vs The Assistant Commissioner on 20 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.14133 and 14134 of 2021
M.Sundar ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Bhoothapandi,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Department of Registration,
Bhoothapandi,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned communication dated 28.06.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
respondent and a consequential order passed by the 1 st respondent in his
proceedings Na.Ka.No.2613/2021/A3 dated 03.08.2021 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the documents
pertaining to Sy.Nos.658/1, 658/3, 658/6, 659/1, 659/2 and 661/2 of Kadukarai,
Kattupudur, Azhagiyapandiyapuram Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari
District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan for
Mr.D.Saravanan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated
28.06.2021 of the 2nd respondent/The Inspector of HR and CE Department
addressed to the 1st respondent/the Assistant Commissioner, indicating that 'No
Objection Certificate' cannot be granted to the petitioner for sale of the subject
property. The impugned order dated 03.08.2021 of the 1st respondent also informs
the same.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and other Vs. the Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
Commissioner and Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Chennai reported
in 2017 SCC Online Mad 19191, has laid down certain guidelines. It is submitted
that the petitioner is yet to approach the Sub Registrar for registering the property.
It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent may be directed to consider the
above mentioned judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which reads as
under:-
“24.This contention is seriously objected to by the learned counsel for
the petitioners. First of all we should state that we are not going into this issue
because the constitutionality of Section 22-A of the Registration Act is not
under challenge. Secondly, whether the property which is covered in the deed
presented for registration is a religious endowment or not in terms of the TN
HR & CE Act also cannot be gone into by us as the said dispute could be
resolved only by a Civil Court on evidence. Even the registering authority is
not competent to go into the said disputed question as he is not exercising any
judicial or quasi judicial function. Similarly, simply because the some lands
were shown as the properties belonging to the religious institution in the
register maintained by the temple, it cannot be construed that the said land
belongs to the said religious institution. It needs to be noted that the register of
properties under Section 29 was prepared not after notice to the interested
persons. It was done unilaterally by the religious institution. Similarly, the
maintenance of the register by updating the same is also not done after notice
to the parties who are interested in the property which is included in the
register after the preparation of the original register. Thus, the preparation as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
well as the maintenance of the register is by the unilateral act of the religious
institution and therefore likelihood of the private lands belonging to any
individual being included in the register by error cannot be ruled out. All these
issues are to be resolved by the Civil Court. Therefore, in our considered view,
once patta has been issued under either the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 it is for the temple to
establish its title before the Civil Court. The registrar is bound to act on the
basis of the ryotwari patta issued by the authority concerned and he shall not
refuse to register the said deeds. As we have already pointed out the remedy
for the religious institution is to approach the civil court for appropriate
remedy.
25.But this observation of ours shall not be construed that it is our
conclusion that ryotwari patta issued to the ryot concerned is the final
adjudication relating to the title for the property. We wish to clarify that the
final adjudication regarding the title to the property can be had only before a
Civil Court. We only say that at the time of registration of the deed, if any
objection is made by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the
registering authority shall issue notice afford opportunity to the parties, apply
his mind and only from the materials available before him, if he is satisfied
that the land belongs to the religious institution or given or endowed to the
religious institution, then, he shall refuse to register such deed.
26.In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed
and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
(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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
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.”
3.The learned counsel for the official respondents submits that in case, the
petitioner presents any documents for registering the property in question, the
guidelines of this Court in the above mentioned case will be followed.
4.Recording the above submission, this writ petition stands closed by
directing the petitioner to present the documents before the 3rd respondent for
registration of the property for the proposed sale. In case, the 3rd respondent is
inclined to not to register the property in terms of Section 22A of the Registration
Act, 1908, the guidelines of this Court, which has been extracted above may be
followed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 20.04.2022
Internet : Yes / No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Bhoothapandi,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.17274 of 2021
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
