BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.34229 of 2025 G.Ragukumaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar's Office, Andipatti, Theni District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Madurai.

(Crime No.11 of 2016). ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/Andipatti/91/2025 dated 18.11.2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed dated 14.11.2025 and immediately return it back to the petitioner, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Government Pleader for R1&R2.

Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate for R3.

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. Wisdom Asset Promoters India Limited executed sale deed dated 14.11.2025 in favour of one Chadasekaran. The document was presented for registration. Registration was refused citing the objection letter received from the third respondent. Challenging the stand of the registering officer, this writ petition has been filed.

3. It is true that the third respondent had sent communication dated 21.01.2017 calling upon the registering officer not to register any document presented by the said company.

4. The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2020 in W.P.No.12289 of 2020 (R.Madhupriya Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai) had held as follows:-

“5. The issue that has been raised in the present writ petition was already considered by this Court in W.P.No.1680 of 2020 by an order dated 03.08.2020. The relevant portions in the order is extracted hereunder.

“5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who had nothing to do with the alleged crime, which is a subject matter of investigation in Crime No.2 of 2018. It was further submitted that a mere letter issued by the Police, cannot be a ground to refuse registration unless there is an order of the Court or someorder of attachment is passed by the Competent Authority under the relevant Enactment.

06....

7.Mr.Annai Ezhil, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted that there is a criminal case that is pending investigation against M/s. Royal Agro Dairy Limited and the persons who were in- charge in running this Company, have cheated a large number of depositors running to several crores of rupees. It was further submitted that the police was able to identify certain properties which have been attached and which are going to be used for the purpose of settling the dues to the innocent depositors.The learned counsel therefore submitted that till the investigation is completed, with regard to the property which is the subject matter in this writ petition, the third respondent should not register any property standing in the name of M/s.Royal Agro Dairy Limited.

8.Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in view of the letter submitted by the Investigation Officer, the third respondent has made an entry in the Encumbrance Certificate and now he cannot go against the said entry and entertain any document that pertains to M/s. Royal Agro Dairy Limited and which covers the Survey Numbers mentioned in the Encumbrance Certificate.The learned counsel further submitted that the third respondent will act in accordance with any directions that may be issued by this Court.

09... 10...

11.The concerned Investigation Officer has merely issued a letter to the third respondent, requesting the third respondent not