Madras High Court
S.Suresh vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 16 October, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A. No.127 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No.127 of 2023
S.Suresh ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100 Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Anna Nagar, JJ Complex,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board
rep. By its Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
Anna Nagar Division,
Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040.
4.S.Ramu ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 29.04.2022 made in W.P. No.1635 of 2021.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
W.A. No.127 of 2023
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan,
Special Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar for R3
R4 – not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Writ order dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.1635 of 2021 is under
challenge in the present intra-court appeal.
2. Writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The appellant
presented a sale deed for registration. The Sub Registrar/registering authority
refused to register the document on the ground that the subject lands were
acquired by the Government and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board/requisitioning body for developing neighbourhood scheme. Refusal was
made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22A of the
Registration Act since objections have been submitted by the competent
authorities. The appellant/presentant of the document submitted his
explanation and the registering authority had conducted an enquiry under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
Section 71 of the Registration Act and passed a reasoned order vide
proceedings dated 22.07.2016, which came to be challenged in the writ
petition. A perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition would show that
the subject lands had been acquired for public purpose by the Government
and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for developing
neighbourhood scheme. Said order indicates that an appeal is provided under
Section 72 of the Registration Act and such appeal may be filed within a period
of 30 days. Instead of preferring an appeal under Section 72 of the
Registration Act, the appellant has preferred a writ petition challenging the
order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the registering authority.
3. There is no representation for the appellant.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the subject lands had not been
acquired by the Government in the year 1967. There are discrepancies
regarding the extent of lands acquired and the registering authority has not
considered the explanation submitted by the appellant in this regard. That
apart, limitation in the present case would not apply since the lands belong to
the appellant had not been acquired by the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
5. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General would oppose
by stating that the subject lands had been included in the land acquisition
proceedings. Acquisition proceedings was completed in all respects in the year
1967 and the acquired lands were handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and possession was taken. Thus the lands vest with the Government
absolutely and presently vest with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The
documents would show that the subject lands have been included in the land
acquisition proceedings and award proceedings. Therefore, the contention of
the appellant is incorrect. The writ Court has verified the documents and found
that the appellant is not entitled for any relief and accordingly dismissed the
writ petition.
6. On the one hand, the appellant would contend that the extent of the
lands mentioned in the land acquisition proceedings is incorrect. On the other
hand, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the proposed
lands have been already acquired and the acquisition proceedings and the
award proceedings would indicate that the subject lands have been acquired
by the Government in the year 1967. This Court is of the considered view that
said disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by the writ Court in writ proceedings
which require scrutinisation of original documents including the land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
acquisition proceedings of the year 1967 in entirety. High court cannot conduct
a roving enquiry. In the present case, the registering authority verified certain
documents and accepted the petitions given by the authorities and refused
registration by passing a reasoned order under Section 71 of the Registration
Act. Therefore, the appellant ought to have preferred an appeal under Section
72 of the Registration Act. The appellate authority is empowered to conduct an
enquiry by calling for the original records including the land acquisition
proceedings, award proceedings etc., and decide the issues independently by
affording opportunity to all the parties.
7. Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General would rely on
the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai, dated 25.06.2022. Said proceedings would indicate
that an adjudication had been done. Paragraph 13 of the said proceedings
reads as follows:
'13. I have also considered the documentary evidence
relied on by the lower courts. The only document available
shows that one Thiru.Alavattan, son of Mudichooran
purchased the suit property from Tmt.Vedammal. The
Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvannamalai in his
proceedings S.R.29/95-96 dated 14.11.96 granted patta in
favour of Party No.1 holding them as legal heirs of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
Thiru.Amavasai. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur in his
proceedings RP5/97 and 17/97 dated 10.03.2000 cancelled
the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer and granted
patta to Party No.3 holding them as legal heirs of
Thiru.Amavasai. There is no valid documentary proof to the
legal heirship of either of the parties. The property was
acquired in the year 1967 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Hence, it is blatantly irregular to pass orders in favour of either
of the parties after a long delay of more than 45 years, that too
without any valid documentary proof to establish their claim.
Hence, both these orders are highly irregular and has to be set
aside.'
8. Relying on the order passed by the Commissioner of Land
Administration, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that
subject lands had already been acquired by the Government and handed over
to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Thus the present appeal is to be rejected.
9. In any event, all the allegations and counter allegations relating to
acquisition proceedings are of the year 1967 and the identity of the presentant
of the document is to be verified by the appellate authority in the event of
preferring any appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant is at
liberty to prefer appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act within a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the appellate
authority shall adjudicate the issues independently on merits by affording
opportunity to all the parties and pass final orders on merits and in accordance
with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of appeal.
11. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
[S.M.S, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
16.10.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Anna Nagar, JJ Complex,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
3.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Anna Nagar Division,
Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
mmi
16.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 03:38:54 pm )
