Sub-Registrar must conduct summary enquiry under Section 22-A on temple Inam land objections before refusing registration, considering Ryotwari Patta.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 04.07.2025.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has proper title deeds in respect of the property in question. Originally, by a document bearing No.1906 of 1886, the property was conveyed to one Rangarajamaiyar. The said Rangarajamaiyar in turn, conveyed the property to one Ramasamy Muthuraja by a registered sale deed, dated 16.08.1933, as document No.2312 of 1933. Thereafter, by further deeds of the year 1965 and Partition Deed of the year 1968, settlement Deed of the year 1974, the petitioner and his predecessors in title claimed title in respect of the property. As a matter of fact, since the land was described as Inam land, a due application was made to in the settlement proceedings and Ryotwari Patta in title was obtained. Suddenly, without any basis whatsoever the objection was raised on behalf of the temple, based upon which without any enquiry whatsoever, the improved order has been passed.

3.The learned counsel by relying upon the Division Bench judgment made in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others, reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135, would submit that the Division Bench itself has categorically said that with reference to Inam lands, if ryotwari patta has also granted and the settlement proceedings are settled in favour of the individuals, the same should also be taken into account by the Sub- Register. The learned counsel would further rely upon the judgment of this Court in W.P(MD).No.30910 of 2023(V.Gomathi V. the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam and another) whereby the sale deed itself was ordered to be registered in respect of the very same survey number. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that without any basis whatsoever, the Temple is simply claiming title and on that basis, the impugned refusal check slip was passed which is illegal.

4.Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Temple would submit that the property in question was originally entered in the Inam fair register and upon consideration thereof, it can be seen that it is only a Service Inam. Both warms cannot be vested in the service holder and the title shall rest only in the temple. Therefore, even though there is no other document of title in favour of the temple, the sale deed executed by the said Rangarajamaiyar in the year 1933 and thereafter the further documents and the decree passed in OS.No.958 of 1994 will not bind the temple.

5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6.It is true that with reference to the very same survey number earlier the sale deed was ordered to be registered. But in any event, it can be seen that whenever an objection is received with reference to the claim that the land belongs to the temple, the same is an objection under section 22(A) of the Act, and the same will neither bind the Sub-Register nor presented by the document in Sudha Ravi Kumar case(cited supra). The Sub-Registrar is expected to conduct a summary enquiry and based on the same pass orders either registering the document or deciding, otherwise the aggrieved party can file an appeal as the case may be. It is the case of the petitioner, the executant that when the Rangarajamaiyar has alienated the property in the year 1933 itself and there has been subsequent documents all along the temple cannot now c