C.Amarnath v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 08.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.Amarnath ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General Of Registration O/o. The Inspector Generalof Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai

2. District Registrar O/o. District Registrar Office, Erode District, Erode

3. Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Sathiyamanglam, Erode ... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Directing the respondents to register the petitioner partition deed dated 03.07.2025 based on online token temporally no. TP/224985138/2025 and reservation serial No 8 (D-408) dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent in accordance with law 1/6

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sengkodi For Respondent : Mr.Abishek Murthy, GA

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register the petitioner partition deed dated 03.07.2025 based on online token temporally No. TP/224985138/2025 and reservation serial No.8 (D-408) dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent in accordance with law.

2. Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the subject land was acquired by the petitioner vide panchayat 2/6

partition deed dated 10.11.2010. Thereafter, he had entered into the partition deed dated 03.07.2025 along with his siblings. Subsequently, he entered online registration and also mentioned the necessary requirements in the registration portal, for which, he obtained the online token and reservation serial number on 28.08.2025. However, the respondent had orally refused to register the partition deed and returned the same without assigning any reason. Hence, this petition.

5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that in this case, the petitioner had not produced the partition deed for registration and also no written order was passed by the respondents with regard to the refusal of registration. Hence, the question of refusal would not come into picture. If the partition deed is presented before the respondent, the same will be taken into consideration. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

3/6

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, it was submitted by the petitioner that he had received an oral instruction from the respondent with regard to the refusal of registration and hence, it is clear that the petitioner had not presented the partition deed before the respondent.

8. As rightly contended by the respondent, once if the partition deed is presented either through online or physically by the petitioner for the purpose of registration, the same will be taken into consideration by the respondents.

9. In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to represent the partition deed before the respondents. In such case, the respondents are directed to register the same, if it is otherwise in order, 4/6

within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

08.10.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To

1. The Inspector General Of Registration O/o. The Inspector Generalof Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai

2. District Registrar O/o. District Registrar Office, Erode District, Erode

3. Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Sathiyamanglam, Erode 5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 08.10.2025 6/6