Velusamy v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.36246 of 2025 & W.M.P(MD)No.28852 of 2025 Velusamy

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Sub Registrar, Vadamadurai Sub-Registrar Office, Dindigul District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/VADAMADURAI/277/2025, dated 24.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 24.11.2025 executed by the petitioner in respect of the land in S.Nos. 620/1B, 620/1E, 620/1M, 620/1D, 620/1H, 620/1N, 620/1P, 620/1G, 620/1L, 620/1O, 620/1F, 620/1I, 620/1K and 620/1J to an extent of 4 acres and 42.5 cents situated in Paganatham Village, Vadamadurai Taluk, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, Additional Government Pleader 1/6

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/VADAMADURAI/ 277/2025, dated 24.11.2025 and to direct the respondents to register the Settlement Deed dated 24.11.2025 executed by the petitioner in respect of the land in S.Nos.620/1B, 620/1E, 620/1M, 620/1D, 620/1H, 620/1N, 620/1P, 620/1G, 620/1L, 620/1O, 620/1F, 620/1I, 620/1K, 620/1J, to an extent of 4 acres and 42.5 cents, situated at Paganatham Village, Vadamadurai Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner purchased the property to an extent of 4 acres and 42.5 cents in S.No.620/1, Paganatham Village, Vadamadurai Taluk, Dindigul District and joint patta was issued at that point of time. Subsequently, the property was sub divided into S.Nos.620/1B, 620/1E, 620/1M in Patta No. 1491, S.Nos.620/1D, 620/1H, 620/1N, 620/1P in Patta No.3818, S.Nos.6 20/1G, 620/1L, 620/1O in Patta No.3819, S.Nos.620/1F, 620/1I, 620/1K in Patta No.3820 and S.No.620/1J in Patta No.1659 and accordingly separate pattas were issued. While so, the petitioner executed a Settlement Deed dated 24.11.2025 in favour of his grandson and presented the same before the second respondent for registration. However, the second respondent 2/6

refused to register the same on the ground that no Correlation Certificate was obtained. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that initially the petitioner purchased the property in S.No.620/1, Paganatham Village, Vadamadurai Taluk, Dindigul District. Subsequently, the said survey number was sub divided. Therefore, the Authorities sought for Correlation Certificate.

4. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either sides.

5. In the present case, there is no dispute on the aspect that when the petitioner initially purchased the property in S.No.620/1, Paganatham Village, Vadamadurai Taluk, Dindigul District, joint patta was issued. Since the original property was of larger extent and the petitioner purchased only 42 acres and 42.5 cents, five separate pattas were issued in Patta Nos.1491, 3818, 3819, 3820 and 1659 totalling to the extent of 42 acres and 42.5 cents. Therefore, initially joint patta was issued to the petitioner and subsequent to the purchase, separate pattas were issued. Such being the case, the rejection to register the Settlement Deed presented by petitioner on the ground that 3/6

Correlation Certificate was not obtained is not appropriate. To be noted, the Revenue Authorities themselves have sub divided the survey numbers and issued separate pattas. Therefore, I do not find any impediment for the second respondent to register the Settlement Deed presented by the petitioner.

6. In view of the same, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/VADAMADURAI/ 277/2025, dated 24.11.2025 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the Settlement Deed dated 24.11.2025 and upon re-presentation, the second respondent is directed to register the same forthwith, if it is in accordance with law.

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18.12.2025 (2/2) Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 4/6

To 1.The District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Sub Registrar, Vadamadurai Sub-Registrar Office, Dindigul District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

mbi 18.12.2025 (2/2) 6/6