Madhuravalli v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.21112 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17884 of 2024 K.Madhuravalli
...Petitioner
-vs1.The District Registrar, Madurai District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
5.Arulmigu Vinayagar Koil, Sivarakottai, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai District, Through its Fit Person, The Executive Officer of Arulmigu Jeya Veera Anjaneyar Temple, Madurai.
1/10
6.The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai District.
7.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Panchayat, Madurai District.
8.The Additional Director, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai-3.
9.The Thasildhar, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in undated check slip, quash the same as the same is arbitrary, ultravires, contrary to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and consequentially direct the second respondent to register the document dated 19.12.2022 bearing pending No.P162 pertaining to the property comprised in S.No.195/1 situated at Sivarakottai Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, release the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.RG.Shankar Ganesh For R1, R2, R6 & R9 : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.S.Manohar For R8 : Mr.R.Satheesh 2/10
ORDER
M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1, 2, 6 and 9, Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 3 and 4, Mr.S.Manohar, learned counsel takes notice for the fifth respondent and Mr.R.Satheesh, learned counsel takes notice for the eighth respondent. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the refusal check slip issued by the respondent on the ground of objections given by the fifth respondent temple and to direct the second respondent to register the document presented by the petitioner with regard to the subject property.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the property in S.No.195/1 is originally the service inam land for the poosaries of the fifth respondent temple. The hereditary poosaries of the fifth respondent temple had borrowed loan from one Narayana Reddy. As the said loan was not 3/10
repaid, a suit came to be filed for recovery of the same and it has been decreed. Pursuant the same, the subject property was sold in the Court auction. The said Narayana Reddy purchased the said property in the auction and he became an absolute owner of the subject property. After the demise of the said Narayana Reddy, his legal heirs had sold the property to the father of the petitioner. From the date of purchase the petitioner's family is in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the subject property. All the revenue records also stand in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner sold the subject property by dividing into plots.
When the petitioner presented the said sale deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered on the ground of objection letter sent by the fifth respondent Temple. The impugned order further proceeds that no documents have been produced by the parties to establish the title and in the revenue records, the subject property has been shown as temple property.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the subject property was the subject matter of the proceedings under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act [Act 4/10
30 of 1963] and the patta was also issued in favor of one Krishnan under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act. That proceedings had also reached finality. It had never been challenged by the Temple. After that definite order, the approval has also been given by the authorities, namely the Tamil Nadu Real Estates Regulatory Authorities/eighth respondent herein. Now, merely on the basis of the objections given by the fifth respondent and without any evidence, the impugned order came to be passed. 5.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that though patta was given under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963, there is no evidence produced by the petitioner to show that the consideration fixed by the authorities under that Act has been paid within the time.
Therefore, still the property is shown as the temple property in the register maintained by the authorities concerned. 6.I have perused the materials placed on record. 7.It is relevant to note that the fact that the patta was issued under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963 in favour of the petitioner's father is not disputed by the fifth respondent.
of the fifth respondent that the said order has been challenged by way of an appeal. Further, no suit has been filed so far with regard to the subject property. In such view of the matter, merely because of the objection letter, the matter already settled cannot be unsettled by raising a plea to the effect that the consideration has not been paid within the time. If at all the amount has not been paid, nothing would prevent the temple from filing a suit for recovery of the subject property. It has also not done so. Therefore, once the patta was given under the statute, namely, Act 30 of 1963, which also reached finality, the effect of the proceedings also binding on the parties as per Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act.
For easy and ready reference, Section 46 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: "Any order passed by any officer, the Government or other authority or any decision of the Tribunal or the Special Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of matters to be determined for the purpose of this Act shall, subject only to any appeal or revision provided by or under this Act, be final." 8.As long as that order has not been challenged, now after several decades, merely on the basis of some objections, the right conferred under the statute cannot be taken away.
after giving objection before the authorities, the fifth respondent, namely the temple, had not produced any report or documents before the Registering authorities to show their entitlement over the subject property. It is also captured in the impugned order. 9.Therefore, the refusal cannot be made merely on the basis of the objection challenging the final order, which had already attained finality. It is for the temple to establish the title over the subject property in the manner know to law and in the event if the temple succeeds by establishing the title, it is always open to the temple to recover the property.
10.Further, filing of a protest petition is not a ground for not registering the document. The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res-integra, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Subramani vs. the Sub Registrar and others [WP.No.11056 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024], in which it has been held as follows: "... b. refusal on the ground of title dispute, in a judgment of this Court in the case of Abdullasa v Inspector General of Registration reported in 2021 2 CWC 451, this Court held that the Registrar cannot refuse to register the document on the 7/10
basis of objections raised by a rival claimant, who has a different source of title. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that an enquiry into the title of the executant is beyond the powers of the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, in view of the law declared in this regard, merely on the ground of protest petitions and objections raised by some third party, the document cannot be refused to be registered." 11.In view of the deliberations made above, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned refusal issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.09.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta To 1.The District Registrar, Madurai District.
8/10
2.The Sub Registrar, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
5.The Thasildhar, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
6.The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai District.
7.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Panchayat, Madurai District.
9/10
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta 04.09.2024 10/10