O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated

13.01.2012 of the third respondent Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department bearing reference Na.Ka.No.2893/2011/A3. By the impugned communication, the third respondent has directed the fourth respondent to not to register the property in S.No.545 of Kandiankovil Village, in which, the petitioner claims to have an interest.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question was classified as “Devadaya Inam Land” pursuant to the enactment of Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the petitioner's predecessor along with others filed a claim petition for grant of ryotwari patta. The Settlement Officer by his order dated 14.10.1968, had directed to issue the patta in favour of the petitioner's predecessor and others subject to the payment of compensation under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

3. An appeal against the order dated 14.10.1968 of the Settlement Officer, was filed by the petitioner's predecessor and others before the Minor Inams Tribunal in C.M.A.No.360 of 1972. The said C.M.A.No.360 of 1972 was allowed by an order dated 22.03.1973 by setting aside the order dated 14.10.1968. The Minor Inams Tribunal directed the officials to issue patta in the name of the petitioner's predecessor and others.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that there was an inter se dispute among the family members of the petitioner's predecessor. Therefore, a partition suit was filed before the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur in O.S.No.359 of 2000. A preliminary decree was passed on 25.08.2000 and a final decree was passed on 22.08.2003 in I.A.No.248 of 2001 in O.S.No.359 of 2000. Ramasamy and Duraisamy filed E.P.No.71 of 2004 in O.S.No.359 of 2000 for putting them in possession and the possession was handed over to them by Execution of Warrant on 11.12.2006.

5. Thereafter, said Ramasamy, Duraisamy and his daughters through their agent sold an extent of 20.97 Acres comprised in S.No.545/2 of Kandiankovil Village to the petitioner by way of a Sale Deed dated 25.09.2006 registered as Document No.2639 of 2006. Thereafter, daughter of Ramasamy filed O.S.No.757 of 2007 which was dismissed confirming the petitioner's title over the property and against the said dismissal order in O.S.No.757 of 2007, the said daughter of Ramasamy filed A.S.No.17 of 2015 which was also dismissed and therefore, the petitioner claims that the rights of the Petitioner has been recognized and that the petitioner has been in possession of the property continuously.

6. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the petitioner has executed a Settlement Deed dated 03.03.2022 in favour of her husband K.Kuppusamy and presented the documents before the fourth respondent for registration. The fourth respondent has returned the same vide refusal check slip, stating that the third respondent has already requested the fourth respondent to not to register the land vide impugned communication dated 13.01.2012 stating that the land belongs to the Arulmighu Nageswara Swami Temple. The petitioner was also directed to obtain NOC from the H.R. & C.E. Department by the fourth respondent.

7. This Writ Petition is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleaders for the respondents. A reference was made to the decision of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Department, Chennai – 34, 2017 (3) CTC 135 : 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 19191, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has answered the issues as follow:-

23. This contention is seriously objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. First of all we should state that we are not going into this issue because the constitutionality of Section 22-A of the Registration Act is not under challenge. Secondly, whether the property which is covered in the deed presented for registrati