G.Yamunadevi v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.03.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.Nos.8011 & 8013 of 2026 G.Yamunadevi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Court, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Joint-IV Sub Registrar, The Office of Sub Registrar, Kancheepuram.

... 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 pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in P.Doc.No.69/2026 dated 04.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed dated 28.01.2026 and the release the same to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijay For Respondents : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 04.02.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent, refusing to register the Page No.1 of 6

sale deed dated 28.01.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that a communication has been received from the Land Acquisition Officer that the subject properties are proposed to be acquired for Parandur Airport project.

2. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned refusal check slip on the ground that it has been passed by total non-application of mind to the settled law that mere proposal for land acquisition will not prohibit the registration department from registering any document. The petitioner categorically contends before this Court that the respondents have not issued any notification u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 for acquiring the petitioner's lands and therefore, there is no prohibition for the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration. In respect of the petitioner's contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following decisions rendered by this Court :- (i) order passed in W.P.No.2667 of 2026, dated 06.02.2026; (ii) order passed in W.P.No.17981 of 2025, dated 30.06.2025; (iii) order passed in W.P.(MD)No.20434 of 2024, dated 28.08.2024. Page No.2 of 6

4. In the aforesaid decisions, it has been made clear that a mere proposal for land acquisition will not prohibit the registration department from registering any document. The law is now well settled by various decisions rendered by this Court, which includes the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a mere proposal to acquire lands will not prohibit the registration department from registering documents. The petitioner categorically contends before this Court that no notification has been issued for acquisition of the petitioner's lands as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and as on date, there is only a proposal to acquire the petitioner's lands.

If the statement of the petitioner is found to be true on enquiry by the registration department, the petitioner's interest to save his properties from acquisition cannot be defeated. The communication placed on record by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents from the land acquisition officer to the registration department also does not reveal that the lands of the petitioner has been acquired and possession has been taken from the petitioner.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard by the 2nd respondent prior to the passing of the impugned refusal check slip. Being a non-speaking order with Page No.3 of 6

regard to the petitioner's contentions 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 04.02.2026 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. However, it is made clear by this Court that necessarily the 2nd respondent has to keep in mind the settled law that mere proposal for acquisition will not prohibit the 2nd respondent from registering any document while deciding the matter afresh.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following manner:- (a) The impugned refusal check slip dated 04.02.2026 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 along with supporting documents and also re-present the sale deed for registration with the 2nd respondent, within a period of one (1) week form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(c) On receipt of the same within the time stipulated, the 2nd respondent, after giving due consideration to the contentions as well as the supporting documents produced Page No.4 of 6

by the petitioner, shall take a final decision as to whether the sale deed presented by the petitioner can be registered or not, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. (d) If the 2nd respondent decides to refuse to register the sale deed, the 2nd respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by her.

7. In the above terms, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscelleneous petitions are closed. 25.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Court, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Joint-IV Sub Registrar, The Office of Sub Registrar, Kancheepuram.

Page No.5 of 6

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

sp 25.03.2026 Page No.6 of 6