SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
SAIL Refractory Company Limited, Rep. By its Chief Operating Officer – Petitioner
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Salem West, Sooramangalam, Salem – Respondent
W.P. No.14249 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.16021, 20374 and 17408 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. V.P. Raman.
For the Respondent:Mr. J. Ravindran Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. U. Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader, Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Elumalai.

The registration authority must refuse registration of any instrument related to state-owned lands unless mandatory consent from the State Government is obtained, reaffirming the legal necessity to adhere to statutory provisions governing land transfers.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A(1)(i) - Writ petition challenging refusal to register a transfer deed involving state-owned lands - The Registrar, pursuant to the impugned order, refused registration on grounds of lack of valid title of transfer and statutory bar under Section 22-A(1)(i) for properties belonging to the State Government. (Para 3)

(B) Assignment of Mining Lease - The court determined that any transfer of mining lease must comply with the condition of obtaining prior consent from the State Government, highlighting that the duty of the registering authority is to ensure compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. (Paras 11.1, 12.2)

(C) BIFR Sanction - The court held that a scheme approved by BIFR could not override mandatory statutory requirements under the MMDR Act and Registration Act. (Para 12.2 and 12.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a subsidiary company, sought registration of a deed of transfer for mining leases concerning over 1700 acres belonging to the State. The transfer was stalled as the state authorities refused registration due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, specifically lack of prior consent under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the refusal was justified based on statutory provisions requiring state approval for the transfer of interests in government lands and mining leases.

Issues: Whether the Registrar had the jurisdiction to refuse registration of the subject deed and whether the consent of the State Government was inadequately considered?

Ratio Decidendi: The registry must refuse registration if statutory requirements, such as state government consent for the assignment of mining leases, are not met. This highlights the authorities' obligation to comply with legal mandates rather than adjudicate ownership disputes.

Result: The writ petition was allowed in part, with the impugned order being set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the respondent authority.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2)
2. court's observations on law and obligations (Para 3)
3. arguments presented by petitioner and respondents (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER :

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the records relating to the impugned refusal order bearing No.BK2/1/2025 dated 21.04.2025 passed pursuant to impugned notice impounding Document No.I2/2024 dated 29.03.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to immediately register the Deed of Transfer (hereinafter referred to as “Subject Deed”) dated 16.11.2011 bearing document No.P58/2012 submitted by Petitioner.

2. Facts of the Case:

2.1. Petitioner, SAIL Refractory Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SAIL”) is a 100% subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited incorporated on 23.08.2011, to take over Salem Refractory Unit of M/s. Burn Standard Company Limited (hereafter referred to as “BSCL”). By virtue of nationalization of Burn & Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company vide Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalization) Act, 1976, all assets and liabilities stood vested with the Central Government. The same was subsequently transferred to BSCL. BSCL, a Government of India undertaking, held various mining leases in relation to mining of magnesite across thousands of acres in Salem District, granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu under various Government Orders, including G.O. Ms. No. 853 dated 05.06.1979.

2.2. During 2010, BSCL was declared as a Sick Unit. Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter referred to as “BIFR”), vide letter dated 09.09.2010, approved a Scheme which inter alia provided for transfer of its Salem Refractory Unit to the Petitioner. Thereafter, following an Office Memorandum from the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises dated 17.11.2011, a Deed of Transfer was executed on 16.12.2011 between BSCL and Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “Subject Deed”) for a nominal consideration of Rs.1/-, transferring the unit as a "going concern" including all assets, liabilities, rights, and leasehold interests.

2.3. Petitioner presented “Subject Deed” for registration on 16.04.2012. For over a decade, said registration remained in suspension / limbo, primarily due to Petitioner’s request for waiver of stamp duty, which the State Government repeatedly declined as not feasible. Subject document was impounded as No. I-2/2016 on 24.08.2016, for non- payment of appropriate stamp duty. Petitioner remitted stamp duty of Rs. 5,78,39,900/- and registration charges of Rs. 72,30,000/- by March 2025 and sought registration and release.

2.4. Despite the payment of duties demanded, 1st Respondent refused registration of “Subject Deed” vide impugned refusal order bearing No. BK2/1/2025 dated 21.04.2025.

3. Relevant portion of impugned order is extracted hereunder:

“Refused under Section 22A (1)(i) of Registration Act , 1908 since transfer deed between SRCL and BSCL involves more than 1700 Acres of Government leased lands without any valid title of transfer between the transferor and transferee. Hence, refused under Section 22(A)(1)(i) of Registration Act , 1908.”

3.1. A reading of the impugned order would show that the “Subject Deed” was refused registration inter alia on the following grounds:

a. Ownership of the State - 1st Respondent observed that the “Subject Deed” involves several hundreds of acres of land (more than 1700) belonging to State Government.

b. Statutory Bar under Section 22-A of Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”)- Impugned order of the 1st Respondent finds that the subject instrument presented for registration viz., “Subject Deed” was hit by Section 22-A(1)(i) of the Registration Act , 1908, which mandates refusal of registration of instruments relating to transfer of immovable properties by way of sale, lease, mortgage etc., int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top