Madras High Court
Chandrasekar vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 18 March, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.4950 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).No.4950 of 2025
Chandrasekar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam Sub Registrar Office,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District.
4.Srirangam Aranganatha Swamy Temple,
Represented by its Executive Officer,
Srirangam, Trichy. .. Respondents
(R-4 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order
dated 24.02.2025 in W.P.(MD).No.4950 of 2025)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire relevant
records related to the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the 3rd
respondent in RFL/Srirangam/102/2024, dated 27.11.2024 and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to register the sale
deed produced by the petitioner, vide Acknowledgment Receipt
No.TP/202132940/2024, dated 27.11.2024, within a stipulated time that
may be fixed by this Court.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
W.P.(MD).No.4950 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Prakash
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R-4 : Mr.M.Saravanan
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash
the proceedings of the third respondent dated 27.11.2024 and to direct the
third respondent to entertain the sale deed produced by the petitioner on
that day.
2. The petitioner states that one Vairapazham Nadar was the owner of
the property. He had purchased the same by way of a document in
Document No.1767/1985 dated 31.07.1985 and Document No.1782/1986
dated 02.07.1986. The petitioner wanted to purchase the property from the
legal heirs of the said Vairapazham Nadar. When they presented the
document for registration, the third respondent refused to register the same
on the ground that Town Survey No.1887 is shown as “0” value in the
guideline register. On verification, the petitioner states that it came to his
knowledge that Sri Aranganatha Swamy Temple is staking a claim over the
property. Hence, the Executive Officer of Sri Aranganatha Swamy Temple
was suo motu impleaded as a party respondent and notice was issued to the
learned Standing counsel for the temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
3. The Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer of Sri Aranganatha
Swamy Temple has filed a counter affidavit stating that the said temple has
no claim over the property situated in Ward No.2, Taluk No.38, T.S.No.1887,
Thimmarayasamuthiram Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
At that stage, the learned Additional Government Pleader stated that he will
get written instructions from the third respondent.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Mr.R.Suresh
Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3
stated that the Tahsildar has informed that Town Survey No.1887 has been
classified as “Srinivasa Swamy Temple and pathway” and hence, they could
not proceed with the registration.
5. I heard Mr.S.P.Prakash for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.M.Saravanan for the fourth respondent.
6. The position of law has been settled by a judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravikumar and another Vs. Sub Registrar Vs.
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, Chennai and others, 2017 (4) MLJ 445. In the
said judgment, the Division Bench had directed as follows:
“25. In view of the above discussions, all the writ
petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
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.
(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 indicated above. At any rate, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
registering authority shall not withhold the deed which has
already been registered.
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed. No costs.”
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the aforesaid procedure
has not been followed in the present case. Hence, the impugned order is set
aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent. The third
respondent shall conduct a summary enquiry as directed by the Division
Bench. He shall issue notice to the person in-charge of the temple, who have
objected to the registration and to the writ petitioner. He shall thereafter
pass appropriate orders on the same.
8. This Writ Petition is ordered in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
18.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam Sub Registrar Office,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
18.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:04:05 am )
