Sathish Kumar A v. The District Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.03.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.No.6920 of 2026 Sathish Kumar A ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Puducherry.

2.The Sub Registrar, Thirukkanur Sub-Register Office, Thirukkanur.

3.Kanagarani K 4.Mankavarathammal K 5.Santhy M ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in the online system ePathirapathivu rejection dated 11.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2nd respondent to register the Settlement deed presented by petitioner on 06.01.2025 within a stipulated time.

Page No.1 of 6

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) [R1 & R2] Notice dispensed with [R3 to R5] *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 11.01.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent refusing to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the following grounds :- (i) a protest petition has been filed by the respondents 3 to 5 opposing the registration of any document for the property, which is the subject matter of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration;

(ii) if the settlement deed is allowed to be registered, it will amount to double entry as the property has already been conveyed.

2. Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry), accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 3 to 5 in this writ petition, notice to the respondents 3 to 5 is dispensed with by this Court. Page No.2 of 6

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned refusal check slip on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, and on the ground that it is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions and supporting documents of the petitioner. The petitioner also categorically contends that the executant of the document presented for registration is legally empowered to execute the said document.

4. As seen from the impugned refusal check slip, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. Neither the petitioner's contentions nor the supporting documents produced by him were considered in the impugned order. Being a non-speaking order with regard to the petitioner's contentions and the supporting documents produced by him, and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 11.01.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

Page No.3 of 6

5. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition in the following manner:- (a) The impugned refusal check slip dated 11.01.2026 is quashed by this Court and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. (b) The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the 2nd respondent within a period of two (2) weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as to why the 2nd respondent has to accept the registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration, along with supporting documents.

(c) On receipt of the same within the time stipulated, the 2nd respondent, after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner along with supporting documents, shall take a final decision with regard to registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four

(4) weeks thereafter.

(d) If the 2nd respondent decides to refuse to register the settlement deed, the 2nd respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by him.

Page No.4 of 6

6. In the above terms, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To 1.The District Registrar, Puducherry.

2.The Sub Registrar, Thirukkanur Sub-Register Office, Thirukkanur.

Page No.5 of 6

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

sp 18.03.2026 Page No.6 of 6