Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
K.Sengottaiyan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition|W.P.No.33561 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For the Respondents:Mr.Abishek Murthy, Government Advocate
The absence of a personal hearing before the refusal of registration renders the order illegal, mandating a fresh inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petitioners seek to challenge an order refusing registration of a Sale Deed - Respondents failed to afford personal hearing before refusal - Court sets aside the order, directing enquiry with notice and hearing. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
(B) Requirement of Opportunity - It is imperative that before refusing registration, an opportunity of hearing should be provided to the concerned parties. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, represented by Power of Attorney, challenged refusal of registration based on pending protests and questioned authenticity of documents without a hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the refusal order was illegal due to lack of personal hearing and ordered an enquiry on merits.
Issues: Main issue was whether the petitioners were given due opportunity before refusal of registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-provision of a hearing to the petitioner before rejecting the registration request is a significant flaw, necessitating rectification by conducting proper enquiry.
Result: The impugned refusal check slip is set aside; respondents are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry after hearing all parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought in writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to refusal of registration based on non-compliance in procedure. (Para 3) |
| 3. requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing before refusal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's directive for fresh enquiry and hearing. (Para 6) |
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Thondamuthur/Book 2/1 dated 28.06.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the second respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 23.05.2025 executed by the General Power of Attorney Agent of the petitioners herein in favour of Mr.K.Jayaraman, Son of Kuppusamy in respect of the property measuring 6.67 Acres of Land comprised in R.S.No.19/2, situated at Mathuvarayapuram Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.
2. Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are represented by their Power of Attorney one Mr.Shanmugaraj. The petitioners have purchased a property measuring 6.67 acres, comprised in R.S.No.19/2 situated at Mathuvarayapuram Village from one Kandhaswamy and patta for the said property was also issued to the petitioners on 23.01.2025 vide Patta No.3639. This being the case, on 23.05.2025, the petitioners executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Mr.Jayaraman Kuppusamy through their Power of Attorney, having paid the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. But, the second respondent refused to register the said document and issued a Refusal Check Slip dated 28.06.2025, citing pending protest petitions and an alleged civil suit and questioned the genuineness of a title certificate annexed with the documents, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Challenging the said refusal order dated 28.06.2025, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the only grievance of the petitioner is, without providing an opportunity of hearing, the second respondent has passed the impugned order. Hence, he submit that the petitioners will be provided with the opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, appropriate orders will be passed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. At the time of issuing the refusal check slip to register the sale deed, the respondents are supposed to have provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and conducted an enquiry. Without providing the same, the respondents arrived at a conclusion that a title certificate issued in favour of the petitioners is not genuine. Such being the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned refusal check slip dated 28.06.2025, passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, the same is set aside and this Court directs the second respondent to conduct an enquiry, after issuing a notice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the third respondent and aggrieved persons, if any and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
