G.Sankarasubramanian v. The District Registrar (Madurai North)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :17.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD) No.28730 of 2025 G.Sankarasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs
1. The District Registrar (Madurai North), O/o. District Registrar, Integrated Complex of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai 625 107.
2. The Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalalagar Kovil, Madurai District.
3. The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar Office, Madurai North Joint No.1, Integrated Complex of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai.
... Respondents 1/7
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na. Ka. No. 412/2014/A2 dated 08.12.2023 and impugned proceedings of the third respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1401-18 dated 26.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the 1 and 3 respondents to cancel 0 (zero) guideline value entered in the book of the third respondent and to fix and enter government registration guideline value in the book of the third respondent in respect of the property of the petitioner which is situated at Madurai North Taluk, Uthangudi Village in Survey No.85/3B (Re-survey Nos.85/3B & 85/9) in plot Nos. 3 & 4 (measuring about 3120 sq.ft) within time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sarvagan Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 Mr.S.Manohar for R2
O R D E R
A challenge was made against the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na. Ka. No. 412/2014/A2 dated 08.12.2023 and the 2/7
consequent impugned proceedings of the third respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.1401-18 dated 26.12.2024.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the subject property on 16.09.2015 and patta has also been mutated in his name. Under these circumstances, the second respondent issued the impugned communication dated 08.12.2023 to the third respondent and based on the said communication, the third respondent treated the subject property as temple property and fixed the guidelines value as '0'.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is not yet the temple property. The petitioner has purchased the same and patta has also been obtained. Therefore, if at all there is anything to be determined about whether it is the temple property or not, the second respondent had to issue notice or publish communication regarding the subject property and thereafter had to fix the guideline value as '0'. They are supposed to issue notice by following the law laid down in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner and 3/7
Commissioner and others (W.P.No.30589 of 2013 and batch, dated 05.04.2017) case, wherein this Court has set aside the impugned orders, stating that the principles of natural justice had not been followed. Hence, he prayed to allow this Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that in the present case, the property is the temple property; however, without issuing any communication or notice, the second respondent has passed the impugned order and in view of the same, the third respondent also, without issuing notice, has fixed the guideline as '0'. Further, even if the second respondent issued the impugned order, the third respondent had to communicate the transaction to the second respondent and also after issuing notice to the petitioner, the third respondent ought to have made the guideline value as '0'. Therefore, the impugned order of the third respondent may be set aside, in which case proper notice will be issued and thereafter, a proper order will be passed.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the available materials on record.
4/7
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent, even if there is a communication from the second respondent treating the subject property as temple property, since the third party registered the same by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.09.2015, there is a duty cast upon the third respondent to issue notice before providing due consideration on the communication of the second respondent and making the guideline value as '0'. Such being the case, without notice regarding the impugned order of the second respondent to the petitioner, the guideline value was fixed as '0' by the third respondent. Such order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order fixing the guideline value as '0' is set aside.
Accordingly, this Court directs the third respondent to issue communication to the second respondent as well as issue notice to the petitioner and further, after providing opportunity of personal hearing, to decide the matter with regard to the fixing of the guideline value of the subject property. The entire exercise shall be completed within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5/7
7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
NCS : Yes/No 17.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To
1. The District Registrar (Madurai North), O/o. District Registrar, Integrated Complex of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai 625 107.
2. The Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalalagar Kovil, Madurai District.
3. The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar Office, Madurai North Joint No.1, Integrated Complex of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai.
6/7
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY .,J.
apd ORDER MADE IN 17.12.2025 7/7