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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
M.Mariyammal – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD) No.1901 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.(MD)No.1901 of 2026

and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1490 & 1492 of 2026

M.Mariyammal ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Assistant Commissioner,

The Department of Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments (HR & CE),

Tenkasi, Tenkasi District – 627 811.

2.The Sub Registrar,

The Office of the Sub Registrar,

Vaasudevanallur,

Tenkasi District – 627 758. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent

Assistant Commissioner in Na.Ka.No.1935/2016-2/Aa1 dated

22.04.2016 (served to the petitioner in November 2025), quash the same

and further direct the 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner to issue

forthwith No Objection Certificate in respect of the petitioner's land

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 07:00:56 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.(MD) No.1901 of 2026

admeasuring to an extent of 8.5 cents at Survey No.523B/4A2A,

Narayanapuram, Bit-2 Vasudhevanallur Range, Tenkasi District, so as to

enable the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar to register the Settlement Deed

executed by the petitioner in favour of her son namely M.Bharathi Dasan

dated 09.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthuvel

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani,

Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1

Mr.K.R.Baduras Zaman,

Govt. Advocate for R2

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned

proceedings issued by the 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner in

Na.Ka.No.1935/2016-2/Aa1 dated 22.04.2016 (served to the petitioner in

November 2025), and also seeking for a consequential direction,

directing the 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner to issue forthwith

No Objection Certificate in respect of the petitioner's land admeasuring

to an extent of 8.5 cents at Survey No.523B/4A2A, Narayanapuram,

Bit-2 Vasudhevanallur Range, Tenkasi District, so as to enable the 2nd

respondent Sub Registrar to register the Settlement Deed executed by the

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 07:00:56 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.(MD) No.1901 of 2026

petitioner in favour of her son namely M.Bharathi Dasan dated

09.07.2025.

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal

at the admission stage itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner

presented a settlement deed dated 09.07.2025 for registration, the same

was refused to be registered citing the reason that the 1st respondent has

raised certain objections for making any registration in respect of the

subject property. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ

Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without

conducting any enquiry, the impugned order was passed in a mechanical

manner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd

respondent would submit that since the first respondent made objections

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 07:00:56 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.(MD) No.1901 of 2026

to register the subject property, the 2nd respondent refused to register the

settlement deed executed by the petitioner. He would fairly submit that

without issuing notice to the petitioner and without conducting any

enquiry, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the impugned order

may be set aside and remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh

consideration.

6. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special

Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the

materials available on record.

7. In the present case, the petitioner claims that the subject

property is the petitioner's property. Therefore, she intends to

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top