SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 1395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Sundaram G – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and WMP.(MD)No.647 of 2026

1.G.Sundaram ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Collector Pudukkottai District Pudukkottai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer Aranthangi and Taluk Pudukkottai District.

3.The Tahsildar Avuadaiyar Koil Taluk Pudukkottai District.

4.The Special Tahsildar Avuadaiyar Koil Taluk Pudukkottai District.

5.The Deputy Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.119 Uthamar Gandhi Road Thousand Lights West Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 034.

6.The District Registrar O/o. District Registrar Office Karaikkudi Taluk Sivagangai District. 7.The Sub-Registrar O/o. Sub-Registrar Office Mimisal Avuadaiyar Koil Taluk Pudukkottai District.

8.Arulmigu Kalyanaramasamy Thirukkoil Represented by its Executive Officer P. Sathyaraj Avuadaiyar Koil Taluk Pudukkottai District.

9.R. Pudupattinam Village Sabha Represented by its Vice-President Mimisal Avuadaiyar Koil Taluk Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents, particularly the 8th respondent impugned letter dated 20.12.2024 and 9th respondent impugned letter dated 26.12.2024 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 7th and 8th respondents, particularly to entertained registration of documents as the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, situated at Alathoor Village, Avudiyarkoil Taluk, Pudukkottai District, comprised in Survey Nos.186/5 and 188/15.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For R1 to R7 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader For R8 : Mr.G.Madhavan, Standing Counsel.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the communication dated 20.12.2024 of the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kalyana Ramasamy Thirukovil, Pudhukottai District, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2.By the impugned communication, dated 20.12.2024 the Executive Officer has requested the Sub Registrar of Mimisal to withhold the registration of lands pertaining to S.Nos.178/2, 188/15, 186/5, 187/5, 187/9, 202/ 6 and 202/8 of Alanthur Village, Pudukkottai District that these lands belong to the temple.

3.The petitioner claims that he is having a civil court decree in his favour in O.S.No.432 of 1993 that the subject lands belong to him.

4.Mr.G.Madhavan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 8th respondent and submits that the petitioner has already made a claim before the Settlement Thasildar in the year 1970 and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, by his order in R.P.No.12/ARG/69 dated 17.03.1970 has rejected the claim of the petitioner and has declared that the subject land is a temple land. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to declare this Mutt as a private Mutt, wherein, the petitioner has mentioned the S.Nos.178/2, 188/15, 186/5, 187/5, 187/9, 202/6 and 202/8 as properties of the Mutt. The request of the petitioner under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was also rejected by his order dated 12.05.1995. Thereafter, a collusive suit was filed by the petitioner among his family members in O.S.No.432 of 1993, without adding the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and a collusive decree was also obtained in a suit for partition. With the strength of the collusive decree, the petitioner has also attempted to register the document and the same has been rightly refused by the Sub Registrar, Pudukottai.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records.

6.Similar issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar vs The Special Commissioner And others reported in 2017 3 CTC

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top