Registration of property cannot be unjustly denied based on mere objections; concrete evidence must establish non-compliance with conditions under relevant laws.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the check slip issued by the first respondent dated 16.12.2024 and consequently direct the first respondent to register the document submitted by the petitioner with regard to Southern side of the Plot Number. 8 comprised in old Survey Number. 619, sub divided into S.No.619/2, Natham Survey No. 755/15A3, measuring to an extent of 1848.75 sq. ft with constructed house and all its appurtenances situated at N.G.O.Colony Part, Gomathi sankar Colony, Ward No.5, Kalappakulam village, Kalappakulam Panchayat, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, Tenkasi District.

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. According to the petitioner, he purchased the Plot Number. 8 comprised in old Survey Number. 619 later sub divided into 619/2 now Natham Survey Number. 755/15A3 measuring to an extent of 1848.75 Sq. Ft with constructed house and all its appurtenances situated at N.G.O. Colony Part, Gomathisankar colony, Ward No.5, Kalappakulam village, Kalappakulam Panchayat, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, Tenkasi District, vide a registered sale deed dated 27.07.2020 in document No. 1629/2020. Thereafter on 16.12.2024, the petitioner decided to sell the subject property in favour of the third party and to execute a sale deed and presented the same before the first respondent for registration. However, on 16.12.2024, the first respondent refused to accept the same citing the objection dated 09.02.2021 given by the 2^nd respondent. Since, the same was rejected by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that patta proceedings had been initiated under Act 30 of 1963 and vide order dated 30.04.1972, ryotwari patta had been issued in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner in respect of the properties in question and that order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged. Ever since the date of patta, the predecessor in title enjoyed the properties in question and several transaction had also taken place. Now, by giving mere objection before the registering authority, the Temple cannot prevent the transaction.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the subject properties are service inams and patta has been granted only under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 30 of 1963) and if the service is not rendered by the pattadharars, they do not have any right either to enjoy the lands or to alienate the same and the Temple can resume the lands at any time as per Section 41 of TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as HR & CE Act'). That apart, Section 38 of Act 30 of 1963 also makes such transaction as void. Hence, he opposed this Writ Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is not disputed by both sides that patta had been originally granted under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. That order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged.

8. It is relevant to extract Sections 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) of Act 30 of 1963, which read as follows:-

“8. Grant of ryotwari Pattas:-

(2)(ii) In the case of any other land, the institution or the individu