ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in Survey No.168/3E1A1A1C2A, Pattipulam village, Thiruporur Taluk, chengalpet District, to an extent of 4.17.5 Hec. (10.30 Acres). It is a ancestral property of his father one Krishtappa Naicker and after the death of his father, she become the absolute owner of the property. Now, the petitioner wants to sell the property in favour of the third parties and also executed a sale deed in favour of one Sundeep Devarajan. When they approached the 2nd respondent for registration, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same on the ground that there is an objection by the 3rd respondent/H.R & C.E. Department. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property is an ancestral property of the petitioner. The petitioner and her family members are in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 30 years, so far no claim has been made by the H.R. & C.E. Department claiming right over the property. Earlier, a sale agreement executed by the petitioner is also registered by the same Sub-Registrar. Now, when the petitioner wants to register the sale deed, suddenly, the H.R. & C.E. Department is raising objection claiming title over the property. According to the petitioner, if at all there is objection, under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the 2nd respondent has to conduct enquiry and give opportunity to the petitioner as well as the H.R & C.E. Department to prove the title. Without doing so, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to register thel same. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi and another /Vs/ The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others reported in 2017(3) CTC 135.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that since the land belongs to the H.R. & C.E. Department, they raised objection before the Sub-Registrar. Since the objection is pending with the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records carefully.

6. The 2nd respondent/Sub-Registrar refused to register the document only on the ground that there is an objection raised by the H.R. & C.E. Department under Section 22-A of the Act, when the H.R. & C.E. Department raised any objection, the Sub-Registrar has to conduct an enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the H.R. & C.E. Department to establish the title over the property, considering the same, he can either register the document or refuse to register the same. Without conducting any enquiry, the 2nd respondent/sub-Registrar cannot simply refused to register the document. In this aspect, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi and another /Vs/ The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others reported in 2017(3) CTC 135, held as follows:

"26. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:

(i) The registering authority before whom the document has been presented shall cause service of notice on the parties to the deeds and also to the objector/religious institution, hold summary enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or refuse to register the document by passing an order having regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.

(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register any document by accepting the objections raised under Section22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the Act.

(iii) If