The Revenue Divisional Officer cannot restrict property registration without statutory authority as property rights are protected under the Constitution.

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner herein challenges the impugned communication dated 22.03.2024 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai calling upon the registering authority to not to entertain any document in respect of the petition-mentioned lands for registration.

3. The petitioner had purchased a piece of land comprised in survey No.111/2 vide sale deed dated 14.08.2019 from the fourth respondent.

4. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned communication since it directly impinges on his right to deal with the petition-mentioned property purchased by him.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to quash the impugned communication.

6. The fourth respondent which had sold the property in favour of the petitioner strongly supported the case of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the property originally belonged to one Shri Meenakshi Mills and that the said company was holding these lands in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed in Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 . They applied to the Government under Section 37A of the Act and obtained permission to hold these lands. Subsequently, the company fell sick. The case was referred to BIFR. The fourth respondent appeared before the BIFR. BIFR presented the scheme of merger. After hearing all the stakeholders including the Government of Tamil Nadu, BIFR sanctioned the scheme vide order dated 23.11.2001. As per the terms of the scheme, the petition-mentioned lands were permitted to be re-classified for residential houses. Exemption from the operation of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 was also granted by the Board. The scheme had become final and it was not put to challenge under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The learned counsel submitted that since the scheme is holding the field, the impugned communication is unsustainable.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel for the fifth respondent vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fourth respondent. According to them, since the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act stood attracted and there was also breach of the terms of exemption granted under Section 37A of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.1012 Revenue Department dated 03.12.1993, the Government is at liberty to resume the lands. Enquiry was also conducted in this regard. The Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer have conducted enquiry and submitted their reports. The matter is presently pending on the file of the Land Commissioner for resumption. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent categorized the very formation of the layout as illegal. It is in these circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer had rightly called upon the registering authority not to entertain any document for registration. They were at pains to point out that if the registration is permitted, third party rights would intervene and innocent and gullible persons may be affected. In such cases, where there is serious issue regarding the title, it is just and proper that the status quo may continue till the issue is resolved. They prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent labours under the impression that the petition-mentioned lands were Government lands and that they had been granted to Shri Meenakshi Mill