ORDER :

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 order of the second respondent, dated 20.03.2018 in Na.Ka.No.30/Saa.pa./C.patt/2018 and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the second respondent to register any documents presented by the petitioners relating to their properties comprised in S.Nos.14/1A2, 14/1B, 14/4, 14/7, 14/10, 14/11, 14/12 and 14/13 respectively on due compliance of other legal norms relating to their respective properties which are previously comprised in S.No.14 without seeking 'No Objection Certificate' from the H.R. & C.E Department.

The petitioners state that they are the owners of the property comprised in S.Nos.14/1A2, 14/1B, 14/4, 14/7, 14/10, 14/11, 14/12 and 14/13. It is the case of the petitioners that the property comprised in this petition is the absolute property of the petitioners and that the seventh respondent herein has no manner of right or enjoyment to any portion of the property of the petitioners. It is also stated that separate patta was given to the temple in respect of S.No.14/1A1 for an extent of 10 cents and the right, title and interest of the temple is confined only in respect of 10 cents, which is available in S.No.14/1A1.

2. Originally, there was a dispute in respect of an extent of 7 acres 84 cents in S.No.14 in Ambathurai Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District. When the temple claims certain rights in respect of an extent of 4 acres, a civil suit in O.S.No.302 of 1961 was filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul and the said suit ended against the HR & CE Department and the matter came upto this Court in S.A.No.168 of 1965. It is also stated that the parties to the second appeal filed a compromise memo and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the said compromise memo. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the temple is the owner only to an extent of 10 cents out of 7 acre 84 cents and that the said extent is also demarcated on ground.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said land measuring to an extent of 10 cents on the southern corner of 7 acres 84 cents is also encroached by a third party and that the temple has not taken any steps to remove the encroachments and to take possession of the property to be under the control of the temple. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners submitted that the fourth respondent has made its objection before the Registering authority by a communication, as if they have objection in respect of the entire extent in S.No.14, even though the holding and title of the fourth respondent is confined only to an extent of 10 cents.

4. It is to be remembered that the registering authority while exercising his functions under the provisions of the Registration Act cannot act beyond the power or jurisdiction conferred on him by the Statute. Section 22 (A) of the Registration Act reads as follows:

"22-A. Refusal to register certain documents.-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any of the following documents, namely:-

(1) instrument relating to the transfer of immovable properties by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease,-

(i) belonging to the State Government or the local authority or Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority established under section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971;

(ii) belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution to which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable;

(iii) donated for Bhoodan Yagna and vested in the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board established under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958; or

(iv) of Wakfs which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board established under the Wakf Act, 1995, unless a sanction in th