Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhoose, J
K.Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector General of Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Muthukumarappa
For the Respondent(s):Mr.P.Harish Govt.Advocate
Non-speaking orders refusing registration without hearing violate natural justice; must consider all documents and provide reasoned decisions.
Headnote:The Registration Act, particularly Section 23, governs the timely presentation of documents for registration. Petitioner sought registration of a sale certificate issued by the XXV Assistant City Civil Court on 02.03.2026, which was refused by the Sub-Registrar via order dated 01.04.2026 on grounds of violation of Section 23. The executing court had modified its earlier order on 18.02.2026 via E.A. No.7 of 2025 in E.P. No.2369 of 2018, which was not considered. Court found the refusal order non-speaking and violative of natural justice principles, lacking opportunity of hearing. Key issue: Whether the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the sale certificate was lawful given the unmodified consideration of the executing court's order. Ratio: Non-speaking orders passed without hearing violate natural justice; administrative authorities must consider all relevant documents and provide reasoned decisions (paras 4-5). Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Sub-Registrar for fresh consideration with directions to afford hearing, pass speaking order if refusing registration, and decide within timelines.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to sub-registrar's refusal of sale certificate registration under section 23. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. impugned order non-speaking, ignored modification, no hearing given. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. quash order, remand for fresh reasoned consideration with hearing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated
01.04.2026 issued by the second respondent, refusing to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the said sale certificate was presented by the petitioner for registration in violation of Section 23 of the Registration Act.
2. As seen from the documents filed along with this writ petition, by order dated 18.02.2026 passed in E.A. No.7 of 2025 in E.P. No.2369 of 2018, based on an amendment application filed by the petitioner, the earlier order passed by the executing Court, which had issued the sale certificate, has been modified. However, as seen from the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, passed by the second respondent, the modification order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the executing Court has not been considered by the second respondent. If the said order was taken into consideration, the petitioner may not have violated Section
23 of the Registration Act.
3. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions.
4. As seen from the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, the petitioner’s contentions as raised in this writ petition along with the petitioner’s supporting documents have not been considered by the second respondent. The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the second respondent prior to passing of the impugned order dated 01.04.2026.
5. Since the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 is a non-speaking order and is an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, necessarily, the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 issued by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the second respondent along with supporting documents, stating as to why there is no legal impediment for the second respondent to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner for registration within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the second respondent after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, shall take a final decision as to whether the sale certificate can be registered or not within a period of three weeks thereafter.
7. In case, the second respondent decides to refuse registration of the sale certificate presented by the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.
