A party's right to register a settlement deed must follow due process and natural justice, including notice and opportunity to respond to objections.

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the Impugned Refusal Check Slip bearing No.RFL/Vellakovil/5/2025 dated 21.03.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent, whereby the Settlement Deed dated 21.03.2025 was refused to be registered on the premise that the temple authorities have objected saying that the title vests with the Arulmigu Varadarajaperumal Thirukovil and Soleeswarar Swami Thirukovil.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property comprised in Old Natham Survey No.502/G, New Natham R.S.O.No.1797/6, covering an extent of 1311 ½ square feet, situated at Vellakovil Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District, belonged to the petitioner's father vide Assessment Proceedings dated 27.09.1968 in Na.Ka.15/78 granted by Deputy Tahsildar, Kangeyam.

3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner's father died intestate on

29.06.2006 leaving behind petitioner's mother, brother, sister and the petitioner herein as his legal heirs. The above said Grama Natham lands was thus entitled to 1/4^th share. The other co-sharers released their 3/4^th share in favour of the petitioner vide Release Deed dated 07.03.2007. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the above said Grama Natham Lands.

3.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner executed a Settlement Deed dated 21.03.2025 in favour of his wife and presented the same for registration and paid necessary charges. However, the 1^st respondent refused to register the settlement deed vide Refusal Check Slip bearing No.RFL/Vellakovil/5/2025 dated 21.03.2025 on the premise that the temple authorities have objected saying that the title of the subject property vests with the Arulmigu Varadarajaperumal Thirukovil and Soleeswarar Swami Thirukovil.

3.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before refusal if there is any objection by the temple authorities the petitioner ought to have been put on notice and ought to have been heard and only thereafter the refusal could have been made. It is submitted that the impugned order refusing to register has been made without putting the petitioner's on notice violating the principles of natural justice. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance upon the Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner and others , reported in, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 19191, wherein certain guidelines has been issued as to the manner in which the registering authority ought to have conducted an enquiry if there is any objections raised by temple authorities. The same is extracted hereunder:

“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 Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the Act.

(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Act by the religious institution are rejected and the document is registered, the remedy for the religious institution is to either approach this Court by way of a writ petition seeking cancellation of the registration or