The registering authority must conduct proper inquiries when objections are raised against property registration, adhering to principles of justice and rights established under relevant acts.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.29775 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.33396 of 2025 K.Navaneetham ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar Chennai District Chennai

2.The Sub Registrar No.182, Bharathi Salai (Pycrafts Road)

Royapettah Chennai

3.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Chennai ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in refusal slip RFL/Chennai, Central Joint 1/70/2024 dated 30.08.2024 and to quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and to further direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed in respect of property comprised in New R.S.No.3780/6/(Old R.S.No.3780/1 Part), Block No.0074, Mylapore (Part 2) Town, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai District, admeasuring to an extent of one ground 262 sq. feet.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.Inbanathan For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate - R1 & R2 Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate (HR&CE) - R3 ORDER By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the refusal slip dated 30.08.2024, whereby the petitioner's sale deed was refused registration on the premise that the property which is sought to be registered by the petitioner belongs to the Arulmigu Thiruvallur Temple, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, and a protest letter / petition has been received from the Executive Officer of the said temple.

3. At the outset, learned Government Advocate would submit that the above temple is not made as a party to the present writ petition. In any view, he would submit that in view of the protest petition, they would follow the procedure / guideline laid down by the division bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravikumar reported in (2017) 4 MLJ 445 . The relevant portion reads as under:

".....

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 registration is a religious endowment or not in terms of the TN HR & CE Act also cannot be gone into by us as the said dispute could be resolved only by a Civil Court on evidence. Even the registering authority is not competent to go into the said disputed question as he is not exercising any judicial or quasi judicial function. Similarly, simply because the some lands were shown as the properties belonging to the religious institution in the register maintained by the temple, it cannot be construed that the said land belongs to the said religious institution. It needs to be noted that the register of properties under Section 29 was prepared not after notice to the interested persons. It was done unilaterally by the religious institution. Similarly, the maintenance of the register by updating the same is also not done after notice to the parties who are interested in the property which is included in the register after the preparation of the original register. Thus, the preparation as well as the maintenance of the register is by the unilateral act of the religious institution and therefore likelihood of the private lands belonging to any individual being included in the register by error cannot be ruled out. All these issues are to be resolved by the Civil Court. Therefore, in our considered view, once patta has been issued und