K.Sasikala v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY K.Sasikala ... Petitioner in both petitions Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 069.
... Respondents in both petitions Prayer in WP.No.41952 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to register the petitioners sale deed presented on 05.05.2025 without insisting the online patta for the house property in Plot No.5 in Old S.No.188/25 Paimash No.925 and 926 measuring to an extent of 578 sq.ft out of 990 sq.ft together with building measuring 450 sq.ft in the ground floor and 450 sq.ft in the first floor total built up area 900 sq.ft situated at Porur village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai district as petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2025. 1/6
Prayer in WP.No.41955 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to register the petitioner's sale deed presented on 05.05.2025 without insisting the online patta for the vacant Plot No.1 in S.No.188/25 Paimash No.925 and 926 measuring to an extent of 2244 sq.ft situated at Porur village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai district as petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2025 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Tamizavel in both petitions For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Arasakumar Government Advocate in both petitions COMMON ORDER The present Writ Petitions have been filed for a mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's sale deeds said to have been presented on 05.05.2025 without insisting online patta.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 05.05.2025, when the petitioner presented the sale deeds for registration, the respondents insisted for online patta to register the same. 2/6
Since the online patta was not available because the respondent has not uploaded the same in the official website of Revenue Department after issuing to the concerned persons, the petitioner is not in a position to produce the same.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that in the present case, either the document or token number has been produced. The petitioner filed this writ petition only upon refusal of the draft sale deed submitted by him therefore, in the event, if any such deed is re-presented, the same will be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.
4. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the petitioner only placed a draft sale deed before the respondent therefore, probably, while enquire into the correctness of the sale deeds, the respondent would have referred for online patta and hence, on assumption that the respondent refused to register sale deeds, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions. 3/6
5. It is stated that there is no evidence to show that refusal to register the document after the presentation on the aspect of nonproduction of the patta. In such being the case, this Court find no merit in the writ petitions. However, in the event any sale deed is re-presented by the petitioner after obtaining token number, the same may be considered for registration in accordance with law.
6. These Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above terms. No costs.
07.11.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No kkn 4/6
To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Kundrathur, Chennai - 600 069.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
KKN 07.11.2025 6/6