A.Thiyagesan v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ A.Thiyagesan : Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Kalasappakam Sub Registrar Office, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai 606 751 : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to Refusal Check Slip bearing refusal Number RFL/Kalasappakkam/43/2025 dated 16/05/2025 and to quash the same as wholly illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 16/05/2025. For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Mano For Respondent :

Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

1/5

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal slip dated 16.05.2025 whereby the settlement deed dated 16.05.2025 was refused registration on the premise that the petitioner is a joint owner of the undivided share with respect to property comprised in Survey 11/23 measuring an extent of 0.14 hectares and comprised in S.No.13/1A measuring an extent of 0.50.50 hectares and his share of land has not been identified by metes and bounds, which according to petitioner is factually incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would also submit that as a matter of fact a representation dated 30.06.2025 has already been submitted before the respondent authority which would show that the reasons set out in the refusal slip are unsustainable.

4. At this juncture, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that 2/5

the representation dated 30.06.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed. It is open to the petitioner to file any objections along with any relevant document in support of his contention stating that the reasons set out in the refusal check slip are unsustainable.

If any such additional representation/documents are filed, the same would be considered, and the settlement deed would be registered, if it is otherwise in order, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.

5. In view thereof, the impugned refusal check dated 16.05.2025 is set aside. It is open to the petitioner to file objections along with any relevant document in support of his contention stating that the reasons set out in the refusal check slip are unsustainable before the respondent authority. If such objections are filed, the respondent authority is directed to consider same along with representation dated 30.06.2025 by taking into consideration the relevant documents submitted by petitioner and register the same, if it is otherwise in order, in accordance with law, after issuing notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and all other interested parties including rival claimants. If for any reason, the respondent authority refuses to register the settlement deed dated 16.05.2025, he shall assign reasons in the refusal slip. It is made clear that this 3/5

Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the case on its own merits and in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

22.08.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order mrn To The Sub Registrar, Kalasappakam Sub Registrar Office, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai 606 751 4/5

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

(mrn) 22.08.2025 5/5