Krishnamoorthy v. The District Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.03.2026 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Krishnamoorthy S/o.(Late) Punniakotti .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Office of District Registrar, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sriperumbadur Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumbadur, Kancheepuram District.

3.Sarasu W/o.R.Annamalai .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for the records of second respondent passed the Refusal Number RFL/Sriperumbadur/31/2025, refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to register the partition documents in favour of the petitioner.

1/6

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Hari For Respondents :

Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate [R1 & R2] Notice dispensed with [R3] *****

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025 issued by the second respondent refusing to register the settlement deed presented by petitioner for registration.

2. Since no adverse orders are passed against the third respondent, notice to third respondent is dispensed with by this Court.

3. Under the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025, the second respondent has refused to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner on the following grounds:

(a) the subject land is a boomithan land and therefore, the same cannot be registered;

(b) protest petition has been filed by third respondent objecting to registration of any document pertaining to the subject property. 2/6

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned refusal check slip on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and on the ground that it is a non-speaking order with regard to the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner categorically contends that he is the absolute owner of the property more fully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed supporting documents in support of his contentions. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the same.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard in the impugned proceedings, which resulted in the passing of the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025. The contentions of the petitioner raised in this writ petition have also not been considered in the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025. Being an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice and a non-speaking order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration.

3/6

6. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.12.2025 passed by the second respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded back to second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

7. The petitioner is directed to submit a written explanation along with supporting documents to the second respondent as to why the settlement deed presented by the petitioner has to be registered and why there is no prohibition for the second respondent to register the settlement deed within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said written explanation from the petitioner within the stipulated time, the second respondent, after hearing the objections of the third respondent and any other necessary party whom the second respondent deems fit to enquire and after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner and after giving due consideration to the objections, if any raised by the third respondent and any other party whom the second respondent has enquired, shall take a final decision as to whether the settlement deed presented by the petitioner can be registered or not. In 4/6

case, the second respondent decides to reject the petitioner's request for registration of the settlement deed, the second respondent shall pass a speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by second respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's written explanation as stipulated supra. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. 09.03.2026 Index: Yes/No NCC:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order gm To 1.The District Registrar, Office of District Registrar, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sriperumbadur Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumbadur, Kancheepuram District.

5/6

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J gm 09.03.2026 6/6