R.Harikrishnan v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.11.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY R.Harikrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Sub Registrar Sro, Guduvancheri, Chengalpattu District.

2. The Joint Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chengalpattu District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Executive Officer Arulmigu Natheswaran Thirukovil, Nandhivaram, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, To quash the refusal slip bearing No. 14980/ 2020 dated 31.12.2020 issued by the 1st 1/7

respondent and consequently register the pending document No.415 of 2020 as er the 1st respondent proceedings in Na.ka.NO.11/2022 dated 07.01.2022 without insisting on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 3rd respondent For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, for Mr.Sarath Chandran For Respondent : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP for R1, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA for R2 & 3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 31.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent.

2. Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the 1st respondent. Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents 2 & 3.

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

2/7

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner had purchased the subject property from one Sham Kumar and his mother. On 31.12.2020, he presented the sale deed before the 1st respondent for the purpose of registration. However, the 1st respondent had refused to register the said sale deed vide refusal check slip dated 31.12.2020 by citing the objection given by 4th respondent and consequently, directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the 3rd respondent.

5. Further, he referred to the order dated 07.01.2022, wherein the 1st respondent had admitted that the property is private patta land and fit for registration. That apart, the Tahsildhar, HR&CE, had also confirmed that the property is not belong to any Temple vide his proceedings passed in the month of April, 2023. In spite of the same, the 1st respondent had insisted the petitioner to obtain NOC from the 3rd respondent.

3/7

6. Under these circumstances, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 1st respondent had registered the settlement deed in respect of the adjacent property without insisting any NOC. Hence, without any other option, he filed the present petition.

7. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had fairly accepted the aforesaid proceedings of the Tahsildar, HR&CE and hence, he would requests this Court to direct the petitioner to re-present the sale deed, so as to consider with regard to the registration of the said deed. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

9. In the case on hand, the petitioner had purchased the subject property from one Sham Kumar and his mother and presented the sale deed before the 1st respondent for the purpose of registration on 4/7

31.12.2020. However, the 1st respondent had refused to register the said sale deed vide refusal check slip dated 31.12.2020 by citing the objection given by 4th respondent and consequently, directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the 3rd respondent.

10. However, in the order dated 07.01.2022, the 1st respondent had admitted that the property belongs to the vendor of the petitioner and the same is acceptable for registration. That apart, the Tahsildhar, HR&CE, had also confirmed that the property is not belong to any Temple vide his proceedings passed in the month of April, 2023. In spite of the same, the petitioner's sale deed was not registered by the 1st respondent.

11. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the refusal check slip issued by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 31.12.2020 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present his sale deed before the 1st respondent. Upon such re-presentation, the 1st respondent is directed to decide with regard to the registration of the said sale deed, after taking into consideration of 5/7

the aforesaid proceedings of Tahsildar, HR&CE passed in the month of April, 2023 (filed before this Court at Page No.61 of the typed set of papers).

12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

19.11.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To

1. The Sub Registrar Sro, Guduvancheri, Chengalpattu District.

2. The Joint Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chengalpattu District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Executive Officer Arulmigu Natheswaran Thirukovil, Nandhivaram, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

6/7

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 19.11.2025 7/7