Arulraj v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Arulraj
...Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Impugned Refusal Check Slip passed by the 2nd respondent in RFL/Nanguneri/61/2025 dated 21.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal, and further direct the second respondent to register the sale dated 21.08.2025 in favour of one Keerthika presented by the petitioner and his mother. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader 1/5
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/Nanguneri/61/2025 dated 21.08.2025 and direct the second respondent to register the sale dated 21.08.2025 in favour of one Keerthika presented by the petitioner and his mother.
2. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
3. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father was allotted a free house site by Assignment Patta dated 05.10.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner's father executed a registered Will dated 05.08.2013 in favour of the petitioner's mother and the petitioner. The petitioner's father passed away on 09.09.2015. Now, the petitioner and his mother are entitled to the property by way of Will and they intend to sell the same. However, the sale deed dated 12.08.2025 presented by them before the second respondent in favour of one Keerthika was refused to be 2/5
registered stating that though free house site was allotted to the petitioner's father, in the revenue records the property is still classified as Government poromboke. Hence, the Writ Petition.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since the revenue records mention the property as Government poromboke, the Authorities are not in a position to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner and his mother.
6. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either sides.
7. In the present case, the Revenue Authorities have issued Assignment Patta in the name of the petitioner's father as early as on 05.10.1994. While so, it is the duty of the Authorities to have changed the classification of land from Government poromboke to the name of the petitioner's father. However, it was not done so. It is merely an inaction on the part of the Authorities to change the classification of the land in the revenue records. Unless and otherwise, the genuinity of the Assignment Patta dated 05.10.1994 is questioned, the revenue records should be mutated and the Authorities should proceed to register the sale deed presented by the 3/5
petitioner and his mother. On the other hand, refusing to register the sale deed is incorrect and therefore, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/Nanguneri/61/2025, dated 21.08.2025 is set aside.
8. The petitioner is directed to re-present the sale deed before the second respondent and upon re-presentation, the second respondent is directed to register the same, if it is in accordance with law.
9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
18.12.2025 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi To 1.The District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
4/5
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mbi 18.12.2025 5/5