BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 11/02/2026 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Pandi Selvi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Theni District, Theni..

2. The District Registrar, Periyakulam, Theni District..

3. The Sub Registrar, Theni District, Theni.. ... 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 relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Refusal Number RFL/Theni/3/2026 dated 03.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to register the petitioners document in respect of the petitioner vacant site bearing S. No.748/2 Re.Survey No.748/2B having extent of 2219 1/2 sq.ft. in Plot No.1 situated at Aranmanaipudur Western Pulam, Koduvilarpatti Village, Theni District vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.4313/2015 dated 29.06.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Beema Rao For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal Check Slip dated 30.01.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent and to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 30.01.2026 presented by the petitioners within the time frame fixed by this Court.

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

3. When the petitioner presented the document/sale deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the 3^rd respondent on the ground that the first respondent through proceedings dated 20.10.2014 had stopped registration in respect of the aforesaid lands including some other lands. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner and when it was presented for registration, it came to be rejected on the ground that for the land in question, the registration was stopped by the first respondent. However, he would contend that the said proceedings of the first respondent has already been quashed by this Court and hence, the rejection made needs to be interfered with.

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

6. It appears that in the present case, the sale deed of the petitioner was refused to be registered citing the proceedings of the first respondent. However, the said proceedings had already been quashed in WP No.13590 of 2024 through order dated 26.06.2024. When such being the position, I do not find any impediment for the 3^rd respondent to register the sale deed.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to represent the sale deed and upon such representation, the 3^rd respondent shall register the same forthwith. No costs.

11.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR TO

1. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Theni District, Theni..

2. The District Registrar, Periyakulam, Theni District..

3. The Sub Registrar, Theni District, Theni..

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.3687 of 2026 Date : 11/02/2026