Allowed

C.Ravichandran, v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC25 Nov 2024WP/19254/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's deed of settlement over land in Survey No.539 was refused registration on the ground that the property belonged to the Wakf Board. The court found the Wakf website and 'A' Register show only Survey No.111 belongs to the mosque, while Survey No.539 is Ryotwari land of the petitioner's predecessors. Refusal check slip quashed; registration directed.

What the court decided

AI extract

C.Ravichandran, Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 25.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶7

C. Ravichandran

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 023

¶11

The District Registrar Arasu nagar, Thandavaraya nagar Kancheepuram – 631 601

¶12

The Sub Registrar NSK Avenue, Manickam Road, Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069

¶13

The Tamil nadu Wakf Board Represented by its Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi nagar, Chennai – 600 001

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶17

5. Syed Sadiq Mosque

¶18

Represented by its Wakf Accountant/Executive Officer Office of the Wakf Executive, Poonamallee Circle, Periy Palli Vasal, 1^st floor, Mosque Street, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056 ... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in refusal number: RFL/Kundrathur/29/2024, T.P.No.184592596/2024 dated 18.06.2024 and quash the same, consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to register the document No.T.P/184592596/2024 submitted by the Petitioner.

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Kavitha For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate For Respondent 4 : Mr. T.Saikrishnan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

2/9

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶25

Challenging the refusal check slip issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 18.06.2024, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the

¶27

property in question from S.P.Muthuraman, S.Kannan, K.Viswanathan and V.Mani under a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.2013. The petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property since then. Thereafter, out of his love and affection, the petitioner had executed a Deed of Settlement dated 18.06.2024 in favour of his son, R.C.Balaji and presented it for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur. The 3^rd respondent kept it pending and thereafter returned it with a check slip, stating that the lands comprised in Survey No.539 is in violation of Section 22-A(1)(iv) of the Registration Act, in the light of the letter forwarded by the 4^th respondent in R.C.No.10731/04/B9/KPM dated 10.12.2012 and 23.06.2022 stating

¶28

that the lands in Survey Number 539 belonged to the 5^th respondent Mosque.

¶29

3/9

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶32

The petitioner would submit that the lands in Survey No.539

¶33

had been purchased by the Cine Technicians Association of South India from one Sulochana and 4 others under a registered Document Nos.2139, 2143, 2909 to 2911 on the file of the S.R.O , Kundrathur wherein the parent document is shown as Document No.1622 of 1972. Thereafter, the Association had obtained a layout plan approval from the CMDA and the plots were sold to members of the Association. The Association, while obtaining the approval, had also executed a Gift Deed in favour of Mangadu Town Panchayat to an extent of 2826 sq.ft. for road and 2112 sq ft for park. In the year 2013, the petitioner had intended to purchase the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, from the Members of the Association and a sale deed was executed in his favour. When the document was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur, the same was kept pending stating that the lands belonged to the Wakf Board. Thereafter, on request, a legal opinion was forwarded by the Government

¶34

4/9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶37

Advocate to then Sub Registrar of Kundrathur and the Government Advocate had opined that the objections of the 4^th respondent Board cannot be taken into account, as the Wakf Board has not produced any document to show their right to the aforesaid survey number. Thereafter, S.P.Muthuraman and 3 others had executed a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner, registered as Document No.4732 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kundrathur. Further, a General Power of Attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of M/s.Geetham Foundation Private Limited, registered as Document No.11961 of 2013 dated 02.09.2013. Thereafter, the General Power of Attorney was cancelled and the cancellation deed has been registered as Document No.13327 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022. When the petitioner had visited the website of the 5^th respondent to check whether the land in question belonged to the Mosque, he came to learn that Survey No.111 measuring an extent of 2-98.50 hectares belonged to the Mosque and this land had nothing to do with the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

5/9

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶41

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶42

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶43

website of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board describes the 5^th respondent in Serial Number No.3 and the general information with reference to the 5^th respondent shows that that they are the owners of Survey No.111 measuring an extent of 2-98.50 hectares of Nanjai land. The “A” Register describes the land in Survey No.539 as Ryotwari Nanjai lands which belonged to one S.K.Ramanajalu and others, who are the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. Therefore, the order of the 3^rd respondent cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.

¶44

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and

¶45

impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 18.06.2024 is set aside.

¶46

6/9

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶49

The petitioner is directed to represent the Deed of Settlement along with a copy of the order of this Court before the 3^rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation, the documents shall be registered. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

25.11.2024

¶51

Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No srn

¶52

To,

¶53

The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 023

¶54

The District Registrar Arasu nagar, Thandavaraya nagar Kancheepuram – 631 601

¶55

The Sub Registrar NSK Avenue, Manickam Road, Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069

¶56

The Executive Officer,

¶57

7/9

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶60

Tamil nadu Wakf Board No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi nagar, Chennai – 600 001

¶61

The Wakf Accountant/Executive Officer Office of the Wakf Executive, Poonamallee Circle, Periy Palli Vasal, 1^st floor, Mosque Street, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056

¶62

8/9

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶65

P.T.ASHA, J.,

¶66

srn

¶67

W.P.No. 19254 of 2024

¶68

25.11.2024

¶69

9/9

¶70

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

C.Ravichandran, v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C.Ravichandran, v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited Vs Thiru.Dinesh Ponraj Oliver, I.a.S., and 2 others

K.Palanivel Vs the District Collector

B.Appakutty Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Shanmugam E. Vs Mageswari Ravikumar

J.Babulal Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Krishnavel Vs the District Collector