E.Venkatesan v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY E.Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Arakkonam Sub-Registrar Office, Arakkonam,Ranipet District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent made in Refusal No.RFL/Arakkonam/36/2025 dated 23.07.2025 quash the same and consequentially direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 16.07.2025 executed by S.Deepa in favour of the petitioner in respect of the properties in S.F.No.269/6 to an extent of 0.09 1⁄2 cents out of the larger extent of 1.46 Acre situated at Nagarikuppam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Refusal No.RFL/Arakkonam/36/2025 dated 23.07.2025 by the respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent refused to register a sale deed dated 16.07.2025, on 23.07.2025 citing the reason that the subject property is a "Panchami land".

3. Learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions from respondent, contended that as per Revenue Records, the land has been notified as "Panchami Land".

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no enquiry was conducted and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner was unable to submit proper explanation to the Revenue Authorities, who had already issued Patta in respect of the land.

5. Admittedly, the respondent refused to register the document submitted by the petitioner on the ground that it is a Panchami land and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to establish as to whether it is a Panchami land or not. Such action of the respondent is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that if this Court feels that without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, necessary directions may be issued to the respondent to pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

7. In view of the above submissions, this Court feels that before deciding the issue whether it is a Panchami Land or not, the Revenue Authorities have already issued patta in the sale deed dated 11.09.2020. The refusal on the part of the respondent to register the sale deed and passing the impugned order, without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and calling for the personal hearing is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order of Refusal

No.RFL/Arakkonam/36/2025 dated 23.07.2025 passed by the respondent is set aside. This Court directs the respondent to conduct enquiry by providing opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter take a decision with regard to registration of the document submitted by the petitioner. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

16.10.2025 (5/6) dh Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order To The Sub Registrar, Arakkonam Sub-Registrar Office, Arakkonam,Ranipet District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

dh 16.10.2025 (5/6)