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
| 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
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 a....
The mining lease lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, and any subsequent transfer is void and not enforceable under law.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
The court ruled that additional conditions in mining lease agreements can be imposed without central government approval, as they pertain to third-party claims and do not conflict with the interests ....
The court ruled that a recommendation by the State does not constitute a vested right or letter of intent under the MMDR Act, and the amended provisions apply prospectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned decisions based on relevant facts, the importance of providing an opportunity of personal hearing, and the need to rec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.