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