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) 20623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
P.Senthilkumar – Appellant
Versus
The Asst. Commissioner of HR&CE, Namakkal – Respondent
W.P.No.29131/2013|W.P.No.29132/2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Shunmuga Sundaram Senior Counsel for M/s.Sona Satish Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan for R1 & R2 Special Government Pleader, Ms.V.Yamuna Devi for R3 Special Government Pleader in W.P.29131 of 2013, Ms.V.Yamuna Devi for R1 to R3, R6 Special Government Pleader, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan for R4 & R5 Special Government Pleader in W.P.29132 of 2013

The court confirms the procedural requirements for document registration pertaining to disputed lands involving a religious institution, following established case law.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the petitioners' appeals against the orders which prohibited document registration related to lands claimed by a religious institution. The court noted issues regarding the requirement of a No Objection Certificate and highlighted that similar issues had been previously ruled upon by the Division Bench in the case reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135. The court directed the Sub-Registrar to follow prescribed procedures in entertaining documents presented by the petitioners. Additionally, it mandated that the previous orders denying registration of documents be set aside.

Table of Content
1. issuance of writ regarding document registration processes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. ownership of property and implications of registration prohibitions. (Para 4 , 5)
3. agreement to follow procedural guidelines set in previous judgment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. reference and compliance with established case law on related issues. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. conclusion of the writ petitions with a directive. (Para 12)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Letter dated 26.11.2010 issued by the second respondent and quash the same, consequentially direct the third respondent to register the documents in respect of the lands in comprised Survey No.63/2 in Molapalayam Village within the Sub- Registration District of Rasipuram and Registration District of Namakkal, without insisting “No Objection Certificate” from HR&CE Department or any other officials.

Prayer in W.P.No.29132 of 2013:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Pa.Mu.1966/2012/A6 dated 05.07.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same, as illegal, as “No Objection Certificate” is not required from the Revenue Authorities for registration of documents.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Shunmuga Sundaram Senior Counsel for M/s.Sona Satish Kumar in both the W.Ps.

For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan for R1 & R2 Special Government Pleader Ms.V.Yamuna Devi for R3 Special Government Pleader in W.P.29131 of 2013 Ms.V.Yamuna Devi for R1 to R3, R6 Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan for R4 & R5 Special Government Pleader in W.P.29132 of 2013

C O M M O N O R D E R

W.P.No.29131 of 2013 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order in Letter dated 26.11.2010 issued by the second respondent and quash the same, consequentially direct the third respondent to register the documents in respect of the lands in comprised Survey No.63/2 in Molapalayam Village within the Sub-Registration District of Rasipuram and Registration District of Namakkal, without insisting “No Objection Certificate” from HR&CE Department or any other officials.

2.W.P.No.29132 of 2013 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order in Pa.Mu.1966/ 2012/A6 dated 05.07.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same, as illegal, as “No Objection Certificate” is not required from the Revenue Authorities for registration of documents.

3.Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the property measuring an extent of 73 cents in S.No.63/1 and 2.31 acres comprised in S.No.63/2 in Molapalayam Village within the Sub Registration District of Rasipuram and the said property was purchased vide sale deed dated 10.02.2010 registered as Document No.720/2010 on the file of SRO, Rasipuram, from one P.Yuvarajan and patta was also issued in their name in Patta No.546 dated 21.06.2010 by the Head Quarters Tahsildar, Rasipuram. Whileso, the impugned order in Letter dated 26.11.2010 was sent by the Inspector of HR&CE, Rasipuram to the SRO, Rasipuram stating that the lands in S.Nos.63/2 and 63/5 in Molapalayam Village belongs to Thaanthoniamman Temple and requested the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram not to register the documents pertaining to the said lands in the name of the individuals.

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners came to know that there was a prohibition/ ban on registration of documents in respect of the lands in S.No.63/2, based on the letter given by the Inspector of HR&CE, Rasipuram and henc

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top