Sivakumar v. The Sub-Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 06/02/2026

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Sivakumar ... Petitioner Vs The Sub-Registrar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

... Respondent PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the respondent in Refusal Number RFL/Oddanchatram/1/2026 dated 05.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal, consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 03.01.2026 presented for registration on 05.01.2026 in respect of the property in Survey No. 682/3 for an extent of 75 cents situated at Oddanchatram by following the procedure under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act within a time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader 1/6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal order passed by the respondent in Refusal Number RFL/Oddanchatram/1/2026 dated 05.01.2026 and to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 03.01.2026 presented for registration on 05.01.2026 in respect of the property in Survey No. 682/3 for an extent of 75 cents situated at Oddanchatram by following the procedure under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act within a time frame.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. When the petitioner presented the document/sale deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that the property is intended to be registered below the guideline value. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

2/6

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the value is below the guideline value, the respondent ought to have referred the matter to the concerned authority in terms of provisions under Section 47 of the Stamp Act for the purpose of redetermination of the value and without following the said procedure contemplated under the Registration Act, the petitioner's sale deed was refused to be registered and hence, prays for interference.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in the present case, since the document was presented below the guideline value fixed by the Government, the document was refused to be registered.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It appears that in the present case, the petitioner intends to purchase the property in question and when the document was presented for registration, the same came to be refused on the ground that the 3/6

document is undervalued. If the sale deed is presented below the guideline value, the right course available to the respondent is only to register the said document and refer the matter for the purpose of redetermination of the guideline/market value in terms of the provisions under Section 47A of the Stamp Act to the concerned authority. Without adopting such procedure, the refusal made is liable to be interfered with.

8. In view of the above, while setting aside the impugned order of refusal, the petitioner is directed to represent the document in question and upon such representation, the respondent shall register the same forthwith, if the same is otherwise in order. In the event, if there is any undervaluation, he can very well invoke Section 47A of the stamp Act for redetermination of the value of the property by referring the matter to the concerned authority under the Stamp Act. No costs.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 06.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR 4/6

TO The Sub-Registrar, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.3306 of 2026 Date : 06/02/2026 6/6