Loganathan v. The Sub-Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.1557 of 2026 Loganathan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Sub-Registrar, Palani, Dindigul District.

2. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Board, 1st Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Refusal Number RFL/No.2 Joint Sub-Registrar, Palani/139/2025 dated 17.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 22A of the Registration Act. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Spl. Govt. Pleader 1/6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Refusal Number RFL/No.2 Joint Sub-Registrar, Palani/139/2025 dated 17.09.2025 and also seeking for a consequential direction directing the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 22A of the Registration Act.

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner presented a sale agreement dated 17.09.2025 for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the 1st respondent on the ground that the subject property belongs to the 2nd respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent, without conducting any enquiry under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, refused to register the sale 2/6

agreement dated 17.09.2025. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that after conducting enquiry under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, necessary orders will be passed.

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

7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the 1st respondent has not conducted any enquiry before issuing impugned refusal check slip. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 1st respondent dated 17.09.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration. The concerned appropriate authority is directed to conduct enquiry and thereafter, take a decision with regard to the registration of the petitioner's sale agreement dated 17.09.2025.

3/6

9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

23.01.2026 vsm Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No 4/6

To

1. The Sub-Registrar, Palani, Dindigul District.

2. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Board, 1st Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

vsm W.P.(MD)No.1557 of 2026 23.01.2026 6/6