The registering authority cannot refuse document registration based on title disputes without substantial evidence, emphasizing a limited inquiry role.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 01.03.2025 issued by the 2^nd respondent and for a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to admit and register the documents presented by the petitioners with respect to the subject property.

2. Heard Mr. N.L. Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 and Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader for R3.

3. The dispute between the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent Temple was considered in detail in the earlier writ petition filed in WP.No.21362 of 2024, which was disposed of by an order dated 13.02.2025. The crux of the issue that was dealt with in the said writ petition is covered at paragraph 7 and 8 of the order which is extracted hereunder:

7. In the case in hand, survey Nos.56, 57/1, 57/2A & 70/1 are involved and they measure a total extent of 2.76 acres. Even in the year 2007, when the first petitioner started developing the subject properties, a legal notice came to be issued by the third respondent temple on 27.6.2007. At that point of time, the third respondent temple was not claiming any right with respect to survey Nos.56, 57 & 70. On receipt of the said notice, a reply notice dated 03.7.2007 was issued by the first petitioner whereby it was informed that the properties belonging to the third respondent temple have not been utilized for the purpose of putting up a residential construction.

8. That apart, in respect of survey No.90, over which, the third respondent is claiming a right, the first petitioner, through the letter dated 25.1.2009, requested the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-34 for giving on lease an extent of 20 cents in order to utilize the same as one of the approach roads to the subject properties. There were some exchange of correspondence and in order to show their bona fides, the first petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as donation to the third respondent temple. There was no further development thereafter. The petitioner obtained necessary planning permission and the building licence and completed the project after getting a completion certificate on 14.2.2014. Thus, 952 residential units have been put up over the entire area. In so far as the title to the subject properties is concerned, the petitioners are claiming title for all the three survey numbers through various title documents and pattas were also standing in the names of the private individuals.

4. This Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, allowed the writ petition in the following terms:

19. Accordingly, the orders dated 23.5.2023 and 24.3.2020 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively are hereby quashed. As a consequence, the second respondent shall restore the pattas as they stood originally in the names of the private individuals forthwith. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent, who shall issue notice to the petitioners and the third respondent temple, give them an opportunity and pass a speaking order by assigning proper reasons within the ambit of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This Court intentionally has not gone into the merits of the case nor rendered any finding since it will have a bearing while the matter is dealt with by the second respondent. The second respondent shall pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court in this order will not have any bearing while the second respondent decides the issue. The second respondent is directed to independently consider the claims made by both the parties and thereafter pass final orders.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the enquiry is yet to c