Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
V. Sathiskumar – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar – Respondent
W.P.No.13006 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Raghavachari, V. Srimathi
For the Respondents: B. Vijay, K. Karthikeyan
A registering authority cannot refuse to register a document based on mere letters of objection from departments like HR&CE the authority's role is limited to a summary enquiry, not a quasi-judicial determination of title.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a refusal slip issued by the Sub-Registrar under the administrative framework of registration, where registration of a sale deed for property in Bogampatti Village was denied based on a notice from the HR & CE Department claiming the property belonged to a temple. The petitioner contended that revenue records (patta) stood in the parties' names and that previous proceedings under Act 26 of 1963 had reached finality. The core issue is whether a registering authority can refuse registration based on a letter of objection from a department without conclusive title deeds. The court observed that the registering authority is not bestowed with quasi-judicial functions to conduct a roving enquiry into title but only a summary enquiry. Relying on Sudha Ravikumar v The Special Commissioner, the court reasoned that mere letters of objection without clinching evidence of title cannot justify refusal of registration. The writ petition stands allowed; the refusal slip is set aside, and the first respondent is directed to register the sale deed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to registration refusal based on departmental claims versus existing revenue records. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the scope of a registering authority's power is limited to summary enquiry, not determining title. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. registration must proceed if title is not conclusively established against the party at the time of registration. (Para 8 , 9) |
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Refusal No. RFL/ Sulur/ 9/ 2024, dated 10.04.2024 and to quash the same as illegal unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and to further direct the 1st respondent to register the sale deed dated 10.04.2024 in respect of old survey No. 170/1, New survey No. 170/8 admeasuring 1200 sq.ft Bogampatti Village Sulur Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for V.Srimathi
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay for R1 Additional Government Pleader
: Mr.K.Karthikeyan for R2 & R3 Government Advocate.
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the refusal slip issued by the first respondent refusing to register the sale deed dated 10.04.2024 on the ground that the temple authorities has issued notice stating that the property belong to the HR & CE Department.
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal in the admission stage itself.
4.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property all along has been a separate property. Even the provisions under the Act 26 of 1963 had reached finality many decades ago. Thereafter, the property had been dealt by the individual and several alienations also took place. All the revenue records stands in the name of the parties. When the documents were presented for registration, at this stage, merely on the basis of some letter addressed by the authorities, the registration has been refused. Hence this writ petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the HR & CE Department, on instructions, submitted that though patta had been issued to the individual, the same had been issued without proper enquiry. Now the temple is taking steps to retrieve the property from the third parties.
6.It is relevant to note that the very reply and the instructions submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the HR & CE Department indicates that the patta has been issued under Act 30 of 1963 long back and the same has not been challenged so far. Now the instructions reveal that still they have not taken any steps. It also further reveals that they only intend to take steps to retrieve the property. Therefore, as on today, the title is not vested with the temple. Be that as it may, it is relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravikumar v The Special Commissioner reported in AIR 2017 Mad 203, held as follows:
“the registering authority is not bestowed with any quasi-judicial function to hold a roving enquiry in respect of the title to the property. But he has to hold a summary enquiry for the limited purpose of satisfying himself that the document deserves to be registered. Such enquiry is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial.”
7.Following the same, this Court in Subramani Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, has held as follows:
20. It is relevant to note that many registration has been refused citing Section 22-A on the only ground that some requests are made by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board or the Waqf Board. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravikumar v The Special Commissioner reported in AIR 2017 Mad 203, wherein, it is held as follows:
“the registering authority is not bestowed with any quasi-judicial function to hold a roving enquiry in respect of
