Mathar Beevi v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD) No.4279 of 2026 1.Mathar Beevi 2.Jaina Beevi 3.Khathisa Beevi 4.Naina Mohammed 5.Sahulhameed 6.Nazimabanu 7.Ibrahim Ali 8.Pakkir Mohammed 9.Habiba Banu 10.Fatima Beevi 11.Muhaidin Fatima Beevi 12.Sheikh Abdullah 13.Ameer Abdul Rahman ... Petitioners Vs.
1/10
1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Paramakudi Sub Registrar Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
...Respondents
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 of the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Paramakudi/6/2026 dated 10.02.2026 with Annexure issued by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further directing the second respondent to register and release the partition deed dated 17.11.2025 presented by the petitioners before the second respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajagopalan Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 10.02.2026.
2. When the petitioners presented a Partition Deed dated 17.11.2025 for registration, registration of the same was refused by the impugned order. 2/10
The impugned Refusal Check Slip refers to earlier proceedings and certain communications issued by the Government and states that the property is classified as "Zero Value Land" and "Government Interest Land." On that basis, the petitioners were directed to rectify the defects and thereafter, represent the document. The impugned Refusal Check Slip also refers to certain discrepancies in the names of the parties.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, insofar as the classification of the property as Government Interest Land is concerned, the issue stands concluded by a series of civil proceedings. It is submitted that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners had instituted O.S.No.64 of 1984 seeking a declaration of title and a consequential permanent injunction restraining interference with their possession and enjoyment of the property. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, the Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, and the Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality, were arrayed as defendants along with certain private parties.
4. The suit was initially decreed. Aggrieved by the same, appeals were preferred by the Municipality as well as the District Collector in 3/10
A.S.Nos.1005 of 1988 and 1044 of 1989, which came to be allowed. Challenging the said judgments, a Letters Patent Appeal in L.P.A. No.129 of 2001 was filed. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
5. Thereafter, the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.101 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi. Upon a detailed trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the title of the plaintiffs and granting a permanent injunction. Though the official respondents subsequently attempted to challenge the decree by filing an appeal along with a petition to condone the delay, the delay condonation petition was dismissed. Consequently, the decree has attained finality.
5. It is therefore contended that, in view of the long-drawn civil litigation culminating in a decree in favour of the petitioners' predecessorsin-title, the classification of the property as Government Interest Land and Zero Value Land cannot be sustained.
4/10
6. With regard to the discrepancy in names, the learned counsel submitted that the name of the 11th petitioner is found in certain documents as "Muhaidin Fatima", whereas her full name is "Muhaidin Fatima Beevi". Likewise, the 12th petitioner's name is found in some documents as "Sheikh Mohammed", whereas his correct name is "Sheikh Abdullah". According to the learned counsel, these are alias names or variations in description appearing in different documents, and the petitioners have now furnished their correct names.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel submitted that, so long as the property continues to be classified as Zero Value Land, the petitioners must first take steps to rectify the same. It is only thereafter that the guideline value can be fixed and the document can be subjected to further scrutiny. It was further submitted that, when the petitioners claim title by inheritance and there is a discrepancy between the names found in the title documents and those found in the legal heirship certificate, the same constitutes a valid reason for refusal, as reflected in the impugned Refusal Check Slip.
5/10
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. Insofar as the title to the property is concerned, a reading of the decree reveals that the property originally belonged to a temple and that, after obtaining due permission from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the trustees of the temple had sold the property under a registered Sale Deed dated 11.08.1959. It is through the said sale deed that the petitioners' predecessors-in-title derived title, and thereafter the petitioners claim title through them.
9. The said factual position has been duly considered by the competent Civil Court while granting the decree. Significantly, the District Collector, the Tahsildar and the Municipality were all parties to the suit proceedings, and the decree has admittedly attained finality. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that, upon an application being made by the petitioners, the competent registration authority shall issue notice to the concerned Revenue and Municipal Authorities and, taking into consideration the finality of the Civil Court decree, pass appropriate orders 6/10
regarding removal of the property from the category of Zero Value Land and fixation of the guideline value. Only thereafter, can the document be processed further.
10. Insofar as the name discrepancies are concerned, the petitioners shall file duly notarized affidavits affirming that the names referred to in the various documents relate to the same individuals, namely the 11th and 12th petitioners. Upon such affidavits being filed and the identity of the concerned parties being satisfactorily established, the registration authority shall process the document in accordance with law.
11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:
(i) Within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, the petitioners shall submit an application before the first respondent seeking removal of the property from the category of Zero Value Land and fixation of the guideline value in accordance with law.
7/10
(ii) Upon receipt of such application, the District Registrar shall issue notice to the Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, and the Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality. After verifying the finality and effect of the Civil Court decree, the District Registrar shall pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. Thereafter, the first respondent shall take necessary steps to determine and fix the guideline value of the property, either directly or through the competent committee. Upon such fixation, the petitioners shall be entitled to re-present the document for registration.
(iii) Upon re-presentation of the document, together with the notarized affidavits referred to above, and upon being satisfied regarding the identity of the 11th and 12th petitioners, the registering authority shall register the document, provided there is no other legal impediment.
No costs.
19.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No (2/2) smn2 8/10
To 1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Paramakudi Sub Registrar Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
9/10
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
smn2 19.06.2026 (2/2) 10/10