Dismissed

Velusamy v. The District Registrar

Madras HC11 Jan 2023WP(MD)/720/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a land purchaser seeking a direction for a 'No Objection' certificate to register a sale deed. The Court held that the appropriate remedy lies before the proper forum regarding the procedure under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with observations that the proper remedy lies before the appropriate forum regarding the procedure under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

Velusamy Vs The District Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 720 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.01.2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 720 of 2023

Velusamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Karur, Karur District.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Karur, Karur District.

¶12

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalyana Pasupatheeswarar Temple, Karur Town, Karur District. ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue the No Objection Certificate for registering the Unnumbered sale deed in Karur District, Manmangalam Taluk, Vangal Village at Survey No. 1222/B in patta No. 3520 which extent about 0.48 cents by considering petitioner representation dated 15.08.2022 in accordance with law within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P. (MD) No. 720 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Rajaselvan For Respondents : Mr. T.Villavankothai Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr. S.Shanmugavel for R3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard Mr. R.Rajaselvan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T.Villavankothai, Learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. S.Shanmugavel, Learned Counsel who takes notice for the Third Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶20

The Petitioner claims to have purchased the land of an extent of 0.48 cents in Survey No. 1222/B in Vangal Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District for which Patta No. 3520 is said to have been granted in favour of his vendor, viz., Rathinam, by the District Revenue Officer, Karur. According to him, when he presented the sale-deed executed in his favour before the First Respondent, it was refused to be registered under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, citing that the property belongs to the Temple of the

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P. (MD) No. 720 of 2023

¶24

Third Respondent. Since the Second Respondent has refused to grant 'No Objection' certificate for registration of the said land in the name of the Petitioner, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶25

At this juncture, reference must be made to the manner in which a claim made by religious institutions under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (as amended in the State of Tamil Nadu) has to be dealt by the Registering Authority as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar -vs- Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai [(2017) 3 CTC 135]. If the said procedure has not been followed, it is for the aggrieved party to work out his remedy in that regard before the proper forum in the manner recognized by law, but it is not possible to entertain any Writ Petition seeking to direct the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to grant 'No Objection' certificate as sought by the Petitioner in this case. It is needless to clarify that no view has been expressed on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter.

¶26