ORDER :

1. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the subject property. They have purchased the same under various sale deeds. The parental documents in regard to the subject property have already been registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kottaram in document Nos.3594/2004, 3596/2004 and 1989-2003/2005 dated 01.12.2004, 01.12.2004 and 22.06.2005 respectively. The Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kottaram for the period from 01.01.1987 to 02.09.2019 bears testimony to the fact of the registration of so many transactions, in regard to the subject property.

2. The owners of the subject property promoted a residential layout with an approval of the competent authority, subsequently conveyed individual plots under different sale deeds, which are also registered under various document numbers from 2008 to 2014.

3. In the above circumstances, the petitioners as the owners of the property executed a sale deed dated, 13.02.2020, in favour of one Mr. Mariappan, in respect of Plot No.8C in new Survey Number 352/2A. The extent of the land covered under the sale Deed is 3.18 cents. When the document was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar Kottaram, the fourth respondent herein vide communication dated 13.02.2020, refused to register the sale deed, on the basis of the reference to a communication from HR & CE Department, dated 25.01.2020. The order refusing to register the document dated 13.02.2020, by the fourth respondent, with reference to the communication of the HR & CE Department, dated 25.01.2020 is the subject matter of the challenge in the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the HR & CE Department, vide its communication dated 25.01.2020, claimed that the property in Suvey No. 352/2 belonged to Arulmighu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple and some private individuals have fraudulently alienated the temple lands. It is also claimed by the Department that under Section 34(1) of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 prohibits the alienation of the immovable properties without prior permission. The learned counsel in this regard would submit that the communication of the HR & CE Department was issued on the erroneous premise in the Survey No. 352/2, Mylaudy Village, Arulmighu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, since the same is contrary to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE Department, wayback in 27.01.1975, in an application of one C.Vallinayagam Pillai in OA.No.81 of 1974, in respect of the same property. In the proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner has categorically held that the suit institution is a private property of the petitioner and finally concluded that the suit institution is not a religious Institution, as defined under the Provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. This conclusion was based on the materials produced before the authority and in the face of such well considered conclusion, the present communication dated, 25.01.2020 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of refusing to register the document presented by these petitioners herein. The learned counsel would further add as stated above and also as a matter of fact, number of transactions have taken place and those transactions have been registered in the same Sub Registrar office, in regard to the same property. The registrations had been done for a period of several years as averred in the affidavit. Such registrations have also been reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, relating to the property. Therefore, the present objection by the Registration Department cannot be countenanced either in law or on facts.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that unless the department comes up with a concrete case as to the ownership of the property mere issuance of the communication cannot tie the hands of the Registering authority, who refused registration on that account alone. Accor