C.Baskar v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY C.Baskar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Theni, Theni District. ...Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the order in Na.Ka.No. 30/2025 dated 22.01.2025 and quash the same, consequently directing the respondent to register the sale deed submitted on 22.01.2025 in TP/207486902/2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Malaikani For R1 to R3 : Mr.S. Kameshwaran Government Advocate

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed submitted on 22.01.2025.

1/4

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner purchased the land in question in S.No.161/2 admeasuring 1760 Sq/ft. from the vendor namely Mrs.Kamatchiammal. The petitioner's vendor Mrs.Kamatchiammal purchased the said property from the earlier land owners on 12.04.2021 and the same was registered. Now, the respondent is refusing to register the present document by stating reason that the land in question is classifed as Kallar Jarry. Hence, the respondent is insisting no objection from the competent authority. Aggrieved over the same the present writ petition is filed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has registered the said property on 12.04.2021 without any murmur. But, now they are objecting to register the present document.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the lands classified as Government Land, Panjamar Jarry, Kallar Jarry, Boomidhan, Anatheenam cannot be register based on the circular issued by the Inspector of Registration.

5. After hearing the rival submission, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the land is classified as stated supra, then the original owner who intended to sell ought to have obtained No objection. If permission is not obtained, then the proceedings ought to be initiated for cancelling such 2/4

allotments. If it is not cancelled as known for law, then the Registration Department cannot raise any objection. In the present case, there is no cancellation of such allotment and the original allottee has sold to earlier vendor namely Kamatchiammal. Therefore, the respondent cannot raise such objection and cannot refuse for registration. The impugned order is erroneous. Therefore, the order impugend is liable to be quashed.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the respondent is quashed and the authority is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the original allottee as per law by strictly following the procedures including issuing show cause notice.

7. With the above observations, this Writ petition is allowed. No costs. 08.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes gvn 3/4

S.SRIMATHY , J.

gvn To

1. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Theni, Theni District.

ORDER MADE IN DATED : 08.08.2025 4/4