Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
S. Saravanakumar – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Prakasam
For the Respondents: Mr.Abishek Murthy, Mr.Avinash Wadhwani

The registration of a property cannot be denied under Section 22-A of the Registration Act on the basis of a claim of it being 'Wakf property' unless the official Gazette notification clearly specifies the survey number and exact extent of the land, thereby establishing statutory protection.

Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1954 - Sections 3(l), 5(2), and 6(1) - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Statutory protection of the Wakf Board - Requirement of Gazette Notification - The court held that for a property to claim statutory protection as a 'Wakf property' under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the Gazette notification must explicitly contain vital particulars such as the specific survey number and exact extent of the land. Mere mention of a village or mosque name is insufficient to shift the burden of proof onto a title holder or justify a refusal of registration by the Registering Authority in the absence of precise identifying details. (Paras 9, 11, and 12)

(B) Property Law - Burden of Proof - Dispute of title - Where the Wakf Board fails to provide specific survey records in their public notification, the burden lies on the Board to establish its title through an independent civil suit, rather than imposing a summary refusal on property owners presenting valid title deeds based on long-standing possession. (Paras 12, 14, and 17)

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction/Judicial Review - Refusal to register property - The Court observed that while the registration authority may relegate parties to a Civil Court if a genuine title dispute exists, the authority cannot indefinitely withhold registration based on an unsubstantiated objection from a statutory body regarding property classification when that body has not fulfilled the evidentiary registration requirements for such protection. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to register a sale deed for a property purchased in 2020. The Registering Authority refused registration, directing the petitioner to obtain an NOC from the Wakf Board, which claimed the property was a Wakf asset based on an old Gazette notification. The petitioner contended that there was a consistent chain of title dating back to 1941 and that the Wakf Board’s objection lacked legal basis as the disputed survey number was not explicitly notified as Wakf property in the official records.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Gazette notification relied upon by the Wakf Board failed to specify the survey number and extent of the subject property. Consequently, the property does not enjoy the automatic statutory bar against registration provided by Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

Issues: Whether the property constitutes a 'Wakf Property' entitled to the statutory protection/bar on registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, given the lack of specific survey details in the official gazette, and whether the respondent was justified in refusing registration.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory protections and the bar on registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act are only applicable to Wakf properties if the official Gazette notification explicitly defines those properties via survey numbers and extent. Without such definitive publication, the Wakf Board has no legal basis to obstruct registration and must prove its title in a competent Civil Court.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, and the first respondent is directed to register the sale deed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts involving property sale registration refusal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the absence of notification of property details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. interpretation of gazette notification requirements for statutory protection. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. final direction to register the sale deed. (Para 19 , 20)

Order

1.The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent, dated 15.04.2025, whereby, the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused to be entertained and the petitioner was directed to obtain NOC from the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board.

2. Facts of the case, in gist and kernel are as follows:-

i) The property comprised in Old S.No.67, in R.S.No.280/1, measuring an extent of 0.96 acres situated at Arakkankottaikarai Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District was owned by one S.N.Abdul Subakhan Sahib; that the said S.N.Abdul Subakhan Sahib sold the land in favour of Karuppa Gounder, through a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1941 to an extent of 24 ¾ cents; that, the said Karuppa Gounder also purchased a property from the same survey number, an extent of 3.22 ¾ acres from one Muthusamy Gounder, through a sale deed dated 09.08.1943 and other extent of 24 ¾ cents from Bab John Sahib through registered sale deed dated 04.09.1944, that the wife of Karuppa Gounder by name Karuppakal also purchased another piece of land in the same survey no.67 to an extent of 24 ¾ cents from Kabeer Sahib, through a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1947, and the entire extent of 3.96 acres were owned by the said Karuppa Gounder and his wife Karuppakka and were in possession and enjoyment of the same.

ii) After the demise of Karuppa Gounder, the legals heirs of the deceased Karuppa Gounder partitioned the above said land through a registered Partition Deed dated 13.06.1958. As per the said partition deed, the said Karuppakal having share to an extent of 99 cents as life interest, and after her demise, her daughter Chellammal become owner and she obtained ryotwari patta and on 12.06.2002 she executed a sale deed in favour of one Chinnasamy, through a registered sale deed.

iii) Thereafter, petitioner purchased the subject land, measuring to an extent of 96 cents from the said A.R.Chinnasamy, vide a registered sale deed in document No.2090 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 and mutation of revenue records were also done. The petitioner, due to urgent requirement of money, decided to sell the subject property in favour of one Kannammal and presented a sale document dated 03.02.2025 for registration. The first respondent vide order dated 15.04.2025, directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Wakf Board and aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being the absolute owner of the subject property is intended to sell a portion of his property in favour of one Kannammal and presented a sale deed dated 03.02.2025 for the purpose of registration, however, the first respondent by virtue of the impugned order refused to register the sale deed citing the reason that objection has been raised by the second respondent- Wakf Board stating that the subject property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and hence, the petitioner has to obtain NOC from the second respondent-Wakf Board, aggrieved by such refusal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3.1 Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner's predecessors-in-title owned the land situated comprised in old S.No.67, R.S.No.280/1, situated at Arakkankottaikarai Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District from the year 1941 onwards; that in fact part of the land situated in same survey number was purchased through the Court auction by Muthusamy Gounder in E.P.R.No.233/1939 in O.S.No.415 of 1935 and the entire records also mutated in the purchaser’s n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASKrishnan Ramasamy, JS. Saravanakumar – AppellantVersusSub Registrar – RespondentWrit Petition

The registration of a property cannot be denied under Section 22-A of the Registration Act on the basis of a claim of it being 'Wakf property' unless the official Gazette notification clearly specifies the survey number and exact extent of the land, thereby establishing statutory protection.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
S. Saravanakumar – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition