← Library
Madras High CourtWP/33235/2024allowed

Govindasamy v. The Revnue Divisional Officer

2024-11-13Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha8 pages

P.T.ASHA, J.

At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter has been listed today under the caption "For Being Mentioned".

2. In view of the clarification, the Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order dated 13.11.2024 in W.P.No.33235 of 2024 may be substituted as follows:- "3. Though the Writ Petition is filed for the disposal of the appeal challenging the Order of the 2nd Respondent in Pa.Mu.3411/22-23-A1 dated 23.08.2024 against which the appeal is filed is one passed without notice to the Petitioners. The Order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent itself is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar for fresh consideration. The 2nd Respondent shall issue notice to both Petitioners as well as the Respondents 4 to 7, hear objections by affording them an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, pass orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

1/8

instead of :- "3. Though the Writ Petition is filed for the disposal of the appeal, the Judgment passed by this Court in Ramayee vs. The Sub Registrar and Others, 2020 (6) CTC 697 and in P.Pappu vs. The Sub Registrar in W.A.No.1160 of 2024, dealt with the rights of the Registering Authority to refuse registration and has held that the right is restricted only to verify the execution and identity and that refusal can be made if the documents falls within the circumstances set out in Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. The reason does not fall under any of the categories set out in Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 23.08.2024 is set aside and the Respondents are directed to register the documents within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of its representation by the Petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ."

3. In all other aspects, the earlier order dated 13.11.2024 shall remain unaltered.

4. The Registry is directed to issue a fresh corrected copy of the order to the parties.

16.12.2024 2/8

rgm P.T.ASHA, J., rgm 3/8

16.12.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

1. Govindasamy

2. Punithalakshmi ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

2. The Tahsildar, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

3. Muralidharan.

4. Ramakrishnan.

5. Senthilkumar.

4/8

6. Subramani.

7. Rajeswari.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent herein to dispose of the Petitioner's Appeal dated 02.09.2024 filed challenging the Proceedings dated 23.08.2024 passed in Pa.Mu.3411/22-23-A1 on the file of the 2nd Respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents :

For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.A.Saravanan

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent herein to dispose of the Petitioners Appeal dated 02.09.2024 filed challenging the Proceedings dated 23.08.2024 passed in Pa.Mu.3411/22-23-A1 on the file of the 2nd Respondent.

2. The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:- The appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 23.08.2024, wherein the 2nd Respondent has included the names of the Respondents 3 to 7 as Joint pattadhars for the Patta of the Petitioner bearing Nos. 2005 and 2006. Admittedly, the said order has been passed without 5/8

notice to the Petitioners whose names have been shown as the Original Pattadhars.

3. Though the Writ Petition is filed for the disposal of the appeal, the Judgment passed by this Court in Ramayee vs. The Sub Registrar and Others, 2020 (6) CTC 697 and in P.Pappu vs. The Sub Registrar in W.A.No.1160 of 2024, dealt with the rights of the Registering Authority to refuse registration and has held that the right is restricted only to verify the execution and identity and that refusal can be made if the documents falls within the circumstances set out in Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. The reason does not fall under any of the categories set out in Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 23.08.2024 is set aside and the Respondents are directed to register the documents within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of its representation by the Petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

13.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order 6/8

rgm P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

2. The Tahsildar, Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

7/8

13.11.2024 8/8