Veerasamy V v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. Its
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)No. 13514 of 2024 V. Veerasamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Inspector General, Department of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Othakadai, Madurai.
3.The District Registrar, Department of Registration, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
4.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Vadamadurai, Dindigul 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 relating to the impugned Refusal Number. RFL / Vadamadurai /227/2023 dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4, to quash the same and consequently, 1/5
to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to execute any transaction like sale, gift, mortgage, lease etc., with regard to his properties in survey number 1778/1B1 an extent of 4 Ares and Survey number 1778/2A1 an extent of 1.25 Ares (Patta No.1306) situated at Kambiliampatti Village, Dindigul East, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T. Thirumurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Saji Bino Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned Refusal Number. RFL / Vadamadurai / 227/2023 dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4 and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to execute any transaction like sale, gift, mortgage, lease etc., with regard to his properties. 2.The contention of the petitioner is that the property originally belonged to his ancestors and presently, the petitioner and his siblings are in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the petitioner submitted the sale deed before the 4th respondent for registration, the 4th respondent refused to register the same stating that it is temple property. 3.When it is temple land, the 4th respondent is bound to conduct 2/5
enquiry by calling the petitioner as well as temple and then pass orders as per the order passed in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and Another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Others in W.P.Nos.30589 of 2013 and batch, dated 05.04.2017.
4.Therefore, the 4th respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass orders in accordance to law.
5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Tmg 3/5
To 1.The Inspector General, Department of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Othakadai, Madurai.
3.The District Registrar, Department of Registration, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
4.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY , J.
Tmg ORDER MADE IN DATED : 08.08.2025 5/5