M.Jayaram v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD)No.1687 of 2026 M.Jayaram ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 34.

2.The District Registrar, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Executive Officer, Vaithyanathaswamy Temple, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.673/2025 dated 24.12.2025 quash the same as illegal and consequential direction, directing the third respondent to fix a guideline value for the petitioner property and register the sale deed submitted by the petitioner without insisting NOC from the first and fourth respondent temple and release the same within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Mareeskumar For Respondents 1 & 4 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Challenge has been made against the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.673/2025 dated 24.12.2025. 2.By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2/6

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner intended to purchase the property in S.Nos.209/1 & 184/10 in Padikkasuvaithanpatty, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District and presented the sale deed for registration before the third respondent. However, the same came to be refused by the third respondent vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2025, citing the reason that the said property belongs to the fourth respondent temple and directed the petitioner to produce NOC from the first and fourth respondents. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner's vendor is in possession and enjoyment of the property and also, the chitta stands in the name of the petitioner's vendor. While that being so, passing the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner's vendor is not justified and seeks for allowing this Writ Petition.

5.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that the impugned order has been passed without notice to the petitioner's vendor and therefore, 3/6

submits that the impugned order may be set aside, in which case, the respondents will take a final decision after due notice to the parties.

6.Considering the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court is setting aside the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 24.12.2025, remanding the matter back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. The third respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, hear them and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

29.01.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6

To 1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 34.

2.The District Registrar, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Executive Officer, Vaithyanathaswamy Temple, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

MR 29.01.2026 6/6