S.N.Baskararaja Nadar And Sons v. The Asst. Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8835, 8836 and 8837 of 2020 M/s.S.N.Baskararaja Nadar and Sons, represented by its Partner, K.Sivarajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.&C.E Department, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Sub-Registrar-Joint II, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records related to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 13.07.2018 and 08.05.2020 both in Na.Ka.No.1271/1994-1/Aa3 and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.08.2020 in check slip No.01/2020 and quash the same insofar as the schedule mentioned property is concerned and consequently direct the second respondent to forthwith register the sale deed dated 05.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner in respect of the schedule mentioned property. For Petitioner: Mr.N.Dilipkumar For R1 : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh Additional Government Pleader 1/5
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents.
2.The writ petitioner purchased the property in question from one Nallathambi for valuable consideration. The said Nallathambi had in turn purchased the property from one AVT.Ganesan, through certain registered sale documents. The property originally belonged to an endowment. The case of the petitioner is that, the said endowment had moved the District Court by filing O.P.No.2 of 1985 and obtained permission from the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, by order dated 04.09.1985.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that when the sale deed was presented for registration before the second respondent, the second respondent, citing the objection raised by the first respondent, declined to register the document and issued the impugned check slip. The petitioner has, therefore, questioned not only the impugned check slip but also the communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar. The first respondent had also filed a detailed counter affidavit and called for the dismissal of the writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit, filed in support of this writ petition. He also filed notes of submissions. 5.I am of the view that without considering the various contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground. As rightly urged by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, this Court cannot undertake an investigation into disputed facts. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135 in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai, while dealing with similar issue, issued the following directions.
"(i) The Registering Authority before whom the document has been presented shall cause service of Notice on the parties to the Deeds and also to the objector / Religious Institution, hold summary Enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or refuse to register the document by passing an Order having regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.
2/5
(ii)If the Registering Authority, refuses to register any document by accepting the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a Statutory Appeal under the Act.
(iii)If the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Act by the Religious institution are rejected and the document is registered, the remedy for the Religious Institution is to either approach or for any other relief or to approach the Civil Court for Declaration of the title and for other consequential reliefs.
(iv)If the Registering Authority refused to register the document acting on the objections raised by a Religious Institution under Section 22-A of the Registering Act, the parties to the deed will be at liberty to straightaway approach the Civil Court for Declaration of Title and other relief without availing the opportunity for filing a Statutory Appeal."
6.I am of the view that the case on hand can also be dealt with on the same lines. In this view of the matter, the impugned communication issued by the second respondent is quashed and the matter is relegated to the file of the second respondent. The second respondent will follow the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid decision.
7.I make it clear that the petitioner is very much placed on a neutral ground. In other words, before the registering authority, the petitioner is placed on the one side, while the HR & CE Department is placed on the other. The second respondent will not treat the communication of the HR&CE Department as a binding communication. The HR&CE authority will place all the relevant materials to indicate that they have the right in the subject matter. If after holding a summary enquiry, the registering authority sustains the objection of the HR&CE Department, then the parties will have to move the jurisdictional Civil Court for declaration of title and for obtaining other reliefs. 8.I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. The contentions of both parties are left fully open.
If on the other hand, the registering authority sustains the stand of the writ petitioner, then as a consequence, the document in question will have to be registered. The registering authority will conclude the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3/5
9.This Writ Petition is party allowed with the aforesaid directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
4/5
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pnn Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To 1.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.&C.E Department, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Sub-Registrar-Joint II, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
+1 CC to M/s.N. DILIPKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-18191[F] dated 28/09/2020 ) and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8835, 8836 and 8837 of 2020 25.09.2020 SCR(CO) SDS(06.10.2020) 5P 4C 5/5