Bhikam Chand Jain v. The District Registrar (Administration)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY 1.Bhikam Chand Jain 2.Sanjodge Arokiyaraj ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The District Registrar (Administration), Krishnagiri.

2.The Sub-Registrar, Shoolagiri.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned refusal check slip dated 28.10.2025 in RFL/Shoolagiri book issued by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and direct the second respondent to register the pending sale deed document P14/2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar for Mr.A.S.Balaji For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the impugned refusal check slip dated 28.10.2025 in RFL/Shoolagiri book issued by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and direct the second respondent to register the pending sale deed document P14/2025.

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 hearing at the stage of admission itself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners jointly purchased the agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 93.5 cents, bearing Patta No.985 in S.311/1B at Nallagana Kothapalli Village, Krishnagiri District and presented the sale deed for registration before the second respondent. However, the second respondent refused to register the same by issuing refusal check slip dated 28.10.2025, citing the reason that there was an energy theft due by the vendor of the aforesaid property. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that the matter will be decided, after issuing due notice as well as affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Since the second respondent refused to register the sale deed executed to and in favour of the petitioners, they have filed the present writ petition. In the present case, if at all there is any attachment order or any communication received from the Electricity Board, the respondents are supposed to issue due notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned and thereafter they would have decided the matter. But, in the case on hand, the second respondent neither issued any notice nor conducted an enquiry, in regard to the registration of sale deed, which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2025. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. Consequently, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the sale deed dated 23.05.2025, upon the re-presentation of the same by the petitioners, after issuing due notice as well as opportunity of personal

hearing to the parties concerned and thereafter, take a decision with regard to the registration of the sale deed.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

27.11.2025 vm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order

To 1.The District Registrar (Administration), Krishnagiri.

2.The Sub-Registrar, Shoolagiri.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

vm

27.11.2025