BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 20/01/2026 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP(MD) No.817 of 2026 Hema Madhav ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur Sub Registration Office, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District..

2. The Joint Commissioner Cum Executive Officer, Arulmighu Sri Aranganatha Swamy Thirukovil, Srirangam, Thiruchirappalli.. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip issued by the respondent vide No. RFL/Thiruverumbur/511/2025, dated 13.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent herein to register the settlement deed dated 13.12.2025 and release the same within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameelarasu For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan for R1 Addl. Government Pleader Mr.M.Saravanan for R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal Slip issued by the respondent vide No. RFL/Thiruverumbur/511/2025, dated 13.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent herein to register the settlement deed dated 13.12.2025 and release the same within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondent and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner purchased the land in question and executed a settlement deed in favour her husband and presented the settlement deed for registration. However, the said settlement deed was refused to be registered by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the 2^nd respondent temple has made some objections. The objection was made stating that the land in question belongs to the 2^nd respondent temple and hence, the 1^st respondent has refused to register the said settlement deed.

Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without issuing notice and without conducting enquiry, the first respondent has mechanically passed the impugned refusal order.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would fairly submit that in the present case, since no notice was issued, the matter may be remitted back to the first respondent and a direction may be issued to the first respondent to conduct enquiry and pass orders.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is seen that in the present case, when the settlement deed was presented by the petitioner, it was refused to be registered on the ground that the land belongs to the 2^nd respondent temple and some objections were made for such registration. However, as per the law laid down by this Court in AIR 2017 Madras 203 [Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and another] before passing any orders, the authorities are bound to issue notice to the parties concerned.

8. Considering the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the impugned order has been passed merely based on the objections raised by the 2^nd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without following the law laid down by this Court in AIR 2017 Madras 203 (supra). Accordingly, the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 13.12.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent. The petitioner is directed to represent the document and upon receipt of the same, the 1^st respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as 2^nd respondent and upon conducting an enquiry strictly in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the f