G.Sandira v. The District Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY G.Sandira ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, O/o. District Registration Office, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District - 608 001.
2.The Sub-Registrar, O/o. Sub-Registrar Office, Parangipettai, Cuddalore District - 608 502.
3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Bhuvanagiri, Cuddalore District - 608 601.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Parangipettai/55/2025 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequential, direct the
second respondent to register the Settlement deed dated 24.06.2025 presented by the petitioner in respect of the properties situated in Survey Nos.168/1, 168/6, and 168/7, C.Muthulur Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed to call for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Parangipettai/55/2025 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequential, direct the second respondent to register the Settlement deed dated 24.06.2025 presented by the petitioner in respect of the properties situated in Survey Nos.168/1, 168/6, and 168/7, C.Muthulur Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.
2. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of lands in S.Nos.168/1, 168/6 and 168/7, situated at C.Muthulur Revenue Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District, purchased under three registered sale deeds dated 13.04.2005 from the original government assignees. The Revenue Department recognized her ownership and issued Patta No.994 in her name. When the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 24.06.2025 in favour of her grandson and presented the same for registration, the second respondent refused to register the same, citing a protest petition lodged by one Mr.Jailani, who claims title under a subsequent sale deed dated 27.09.2010 executed by a third party with no lawful title. Despite the third respondent having officially confirmed through letters dated 15.05.2025 and 20.05.2025 that
the petitioner's patta No.994 is genuine and that the properties stand in her name, the second respondent refused to register the settlement deed and issued a refusal check slip dated 24.06.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that without conducting any proper enquiry on the protest petition, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 24.06.2025, which is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that an enquiry will be conducted on the protest petition and appropriate orders passed within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has presented the settlement deed for registration, however, the second respondent refused to register the same citing the reason that a protest petition was received from the third party viz., Mr.Jailani. Under these circumstances, the second respondent ought to have issued notice to the petitioner as well as the protest petitioner Mr.Jailani and decided the matter, whether to register the settlement deed or not. But, in the case on hand, the second respondent has not issued notice to both the parties and not conducted an enquiry.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds serious default on the decision making process of the second respondent and inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2025. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. Consequently, this Court directs the second respondent to register the settlement deed, upon re-presentation of the same by the petitioner or if it is otherwise in order, after issuing due notice to the petitioner as well as Mr.Jailani, who raised objection to register the said
deed. It is made clear that the entire exercise has to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
13.11.2025 vm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order To 1.The District Registrar, O/o. District Registration Office, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District - 608 001.
2.The Sub-Registrar, O/o. Sub-Registrar Office, Parangipettai, Cuddalore District - 608 502.
3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Bhuvanagiri, Cuddalore District - 608 601.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
vm
13.11.2025