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) 14314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
SIVASAMY – Appellant
Versus
Inspector General Registration Department – Respondent
WMP No.6029 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.B.Akhash, R.V.Agilan
For the Respondents: Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl. G.P.

Judicial direction for administrative correction of land registration details under Article 226.

Headnote:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 25.03.2025 and direct corrections to the index data. The petitioner contended errors persisted regarding survey numbers and boundary details. The court ordered the petitioner to submit corrections, and officials must review within prescribed timelines. The final outcome affirms the direction for prompt correction and closure of associated petitions.

Table of Content
1. division of joint family property and errors in land registration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. acknowledgment of submission by state representatives. (Para 3)
3. judicial orders for correcting land registration records. (Para 4)

ORDER

The petitioner and members of his family divided their joint family property under partition deed dated 07.09.1994 bearing document No.1495/1994. When the petitioner applied for a bank loan and obtained a copy of the encumbrance certificate, the petitioner noticed that certain survey numbers and other details related to the partition deed were not entered in the encumbrance certificate. In spite of repeated follow-up, it is stated that the respondents failed to make the necessary corrections. In those circumstances, the petitioner assails a communication dated 25.03.2025 and seeks consequential correction of the index data.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eight survey numbers pertaining to the partition deed are not reflected in the records of the Registration Department. In addition, he submits that the boundary details pertaining to Schedule-D1, Schedule-D2 and Schedule-D5 are incorrect.

3. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for all the respondents. On the basis of written instructions, he submits that five survey numbers, namely S.Nos.374/2J, 374/2N2, 374/2B, 374/4 and 344/2H were included pursuant to the petitioner’s representation. He also adds that the inclusion of S.Nos.369/3, 375/3A, and 388/5 is under consideration.

4. Taking the above submissions into account, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner may submit a representation indicating the errors in Schedule-D1, Schedule-D2 and Schedule-D5. Such representation shall be submitted within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Within 30 days from the receipt of such representation, the fourth respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and take necessary steps for the inclusion of all the survey numbers and for the correction of the errors in the boundary details pertaining to Schedule-D1, Schedule-D2 and Schedule-5.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

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 Back to top