Kavitha v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
1. Kavitha
2. R.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Hosur.
3. The Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai -5.
4. The Director of Land Survey & Land Tax Planning, Land Survey & Land Tax Planning Department, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Hosur/3/2025, issued by the SubRegistrar, Hosur, dated 31.01.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary, against
law and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the second respondent herein to register the petitioners sale agreement dated 31.01.2025 without relying upon the internal letter issued by the 4th respondent to the 1st respondent on 27.05.2022 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may think deem fit and proper.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Karthick Jagannath, Government Advocate For R3 & R4 : Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent dated 31.01.2025 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale agreement dated 31.01.2025.
2. The sale agreement that was presented for registration was refused to be registered by the second respondent by placing reliance upon the communication issued by the fourth respondent to the first respondent dated 27.05.2022. In view of the same, this court directed the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 to take instructions.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the written instructions received from the fourth respondent was placed before this court. On carefully going through the same, it is seen that with respect to six Villages at Chennasandiram, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, the original settlement work was commenced in the year 2017. After completion of the survey and other perambulation works, G.O (Ms) No.317, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Survey and Settlement Wing (SS) (2) Section, dated 14.07.2022 was issued and the work now covers a total extent of 2,482 acres. While carrying on with this work, the notice of the fourth respondent was drawn to some of the fraudulent transactions that took place. In view of the same, the fourth respondent seems to have issued a communication dated 27.05.2022 to the Inspector General of Registration to temporarily stop all registrations pertaining to the properties in six villages until further orders are passed.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions
submitted that the work is yet to be completed and in the meantime, if such transactions are registered, it will cause more confusion in finalizing the title of the inam lands. That apart, the enquiry process has been completed and now it is at the stage of issuance of patta to the individuals which will be completed shortly.
5. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthick Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.
6. In the considered view of this court, the fourth respondent cannot stop registration of all lands in six villages by issuing a communication to the first respondent. Right to property is now given the status of a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no one can be prevented from dealing with the property except by the procedure established by law. The petitioner is tracing right over the property through a registered muchalika deed of the year 1944, sale deed dated 29.10.2003 and the registered gifts/ settlement deeds dated
21.12.2021. In such an event, the petitioner cannot be restrained from dealing with the property by a mere communication made by the fourth respondent to the first respondent.
7. The communication made by the fourth respondent to the first respondent which tantamounts to dealing with any property situated in six villages, directly infringes the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
8. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the second respondent to entertain the sale agreement dated 31.01.2025 and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. The petitioner need not be made to approach this court every time when the property is being dealt with and therefore, any document touching upon the subject property shall be entertained and registered, if it is otherwise in order.
9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the above
directions. No costs.
04.03.2025 skr (2/2) Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
skr To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Hosur.
3. The Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chepauk, Chennai -5.
4. The Director of Land Survey & Land Tax Planning, Land Survey & Land Tax Planning Department, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
04.03.2025
(2/2)