B.Senthilkumar v. The Sub Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P. No.53722 of 2025 B.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner vs 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar - Perundurai, Erode.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Erode, Erode District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in respect of the Refusal Slip bearing Refusal Number:RFL/Perundurai/132/2025 dated 12.11.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequentially direct the first respondent to entertain and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of lands totally measuring 80.5 cents comprised in Survey Nos.760/1A and 760/2 of Karumandi Sellipalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District and remove the 1/5
entries if any made in the Encumbrance Certificate or other records by relying upon the letter bearing Na.Ka.No.135/DSP/Eow/Erode/2024 dated 25.05.2024 issued by the second respondent in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan For Respondents :
Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate for R1 Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor for R2
ORDER
The petitioner executed a sale deed dated 10.11.2025 in favour of one Mr.Devaraj and presented the same for registration. The request for registration was refused by the impugned refusal check slip.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request for registration was declined by referring to a letter issued by the second respondent herein. By placing reliance on earlier orders of this Court in K.Rukmangathan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others dated 19.02.2025 in W.P.No.4969 of 2025, learned counsel submits that the registering officer cannot refuse 2/5
registration on receipt of a letter from the second respondent because the second respondent does not have authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent such registration.
3. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the first respondent and Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for the second respondent.
4. On perusal of the impugned refusal check slip, it is clear that the order was issued on the basis of a letter from the second respondent to the effect that conveyances pertaining to the property forming the subject of parent document bearing Document No.10085 of 2022 should not be entertained. Since the second respondent does not have the authority to prevent conveyance by addressing such letter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to re-present the relevant document for registration. Subject to compliance with other requirements in this regard, the Sub Registrar is directed to undertake necessary measures in regard to such registration within two weeks from the date of representation. If an entry was made in the Register of Encumbrances on the basis of the letter from the second respondent, an appropriate neutralizing entry shall be made. 3/5
5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16.12.2025 Index:Yes/No mmi To 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar - Perundurai, Erode.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Erode, Erode District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4/5
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
mmi 16.12.2025 5/5