Allowed¶66

The Joint Commissioner v. K.Mayilvel

Madras HC18 Mar 2025WA(MD)/1539/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HR&CE objection to registration; Section 22-A Registration Act procedure; refusal check slip; Sudha Ravi Kumar 2017 (3) CTC 135 directions; summary enquiry by registering authority; water charity / Thanner Panthal charge; Survey No.101/3A1 Thirubuvanam; Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 patta; Sivagangai Devasthanam impleading petition; remand to Sub Registrar; speaking order within four months; writ appeal allowed; Madurai Bench; Clause 15 Letters Patent.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed with no costs; the order of the learned single Judge set aside; matter remitted to the second respondent (Sub Registrar) for fresh enquiry after notice to all parties and a speaking order within four months; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶66

The Joint Commissioner Vs K.Mayilvel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether, on an objection from the HR&CE Department/religious institution, the registering and appellate authorities were bound to adopt the Sudha Ravi Kumar procedure (notice, summary enquiry, hearing, speaking order) before refusing registration, and whether their failure to do so vitiated the refusal. +1 more

¶60

Court's answer

In the case on hand the HR&CE Department had lodged an objection, but neither the registering authority nor the appellate authority held the enquiry laid down in Sudha Ravi Kumar; this failure obliged the Division Bench to interfere.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The learned single Judge should have set aside the refusal check slip issued by the registering authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

¶60

Key takeaways

A direction for registering the document could not have been issued by the writ court in these circumstances.ratio¶60
Since the document has since been registered and released, further transactions will not be entertained by the registering authority, and the rights of the parties will abide by the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted in terms of the Sudha Ravi Kumar direction.ratio¶60
The matter is remitted to the second respondent (Sub Registrar), who will issue notices to the purchaser Mohammed Muthu, the vendor K.Mayilvel, the appellant and the impleading petitioner, permit the parties to place their respective cases, conclude the enquiry and pass a speaking order within four months; thereafter the parties may work out their rights in the manner laid down in the Sudha Ravi Kumar decision.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal by Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Sivagangai against the single Judge's order directing the Sub Registrar to register a sale deed dated 20.06.2019 over land in Survey No.101/3A1, Thirubuvanam, which the HR&CE Department and an individual objector claimed was charged with a water charity (Thanner Panthal) and allegedly endowed to a religious institution. Held, following Sudha Ravi Kumar (2017 (3) CTC 135): whenever an objection is received from a religious institution, the registering authority must serve notice on the parties and the objector, hold a summary enquiry and pass a speaking order before registering or refusing; neither the registering authority nor the appellate authority held any such enquiry. The single Judge should therefore have set aside the refusal check slip and remanded the matter, not directed registration. Since the document had already been registered and released, further transactions will not be entertained and the parties' rights abide by the outcome of the enquiry. Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the Sub Registrar to issue notices to the purchaser, vendor, appellant and impleading petitioner and pass a speaking order within four months; merits left open.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.6322 of 2021 & 3405 of 2025

¶9

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai. ... Appellant / 2^nd Respondent

¶10

Vs. 1.K.Mayilvel ... 1^st Respondent / Petitioner 2.The Sub Registrar, Thiruppuvanam Sub Registrar Office, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. ... 2^nd Respondent / 1^st Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.19280 of 2019.

¶12

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

¶13

1/10

¶14

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan for R.1 Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader for R.2 Mr.S.Madhavan for Impleading Petitioner

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

2.The writ petitioner Thiru.K.Mayilvel executed sale deed dated 13.08.2018 in favour of one Mohammed Muthu conveying 1744½ sq.feet

¶20

of land in Survey No.101/3A1, Thirubuvanam. The document was presented for registration. At this stage, objection was received from the HR&CE Department and an individual by name Sengaimaran also lodged his objections. Thereupon, the Sub Registrar, Thirubuvanam declined to register the document. Aggrieved by the same, the purchaser

¶21

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

¶22

2/10

¶23

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶24

Mohammed Muthu filed an appeal before the District Registrar, Sivagangai. The appellate authority vide order dated 26.02.2019 disposed of the appeal with the observation that the land in question had been charged with performance of water charity and that therefore permitting registration of such a document would be contrary to public policy. In that view of the matter, the appellate authority declined to issue any direction for registering the document. Thereafter, the parties, namely, Mayilvel and Mohammed Muthu redrafted the sale deed by incorporating a recital of charge. A fresh sale deed dated 20.06.2019 was presented for registration. The registering authority once again declined to register the document and issued refusal check slip dated 19.06.2019. The registering authority called upon the parties to obtain No Objection Certificate from the HR&CE Department. Challenging the stand of the registering authority, Mayilvel filed W.P(MD)No.19280 of 2019. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2021 in the following terms:

¶25

“22.This Court in the final consideration is of the view that as observed in the earlier paragraphs of this order, no amount of objections from the second respondent department would sway the case against the petitioner as on date as the only objection the second respondent could have at best is the water charity work

¶26

3/10

¶27

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

¶28

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶29

attached to the property that too if the charity is to be continued as a religious edict and beyond that this Court does not think that the second respondent can have any say in the property owned by the petitioner. This Court having considered the fact and the petitioner also having incorporated necessary recitals in obligating the transferee to carry on the charitable objective as endowed in the property, it is not open to the first respondent to refuse to register the document on that ground, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶30

23.For all the above said reasons, the impugned endorsement dated 20.06.2019 made in the receipt for registration in Receipt No.2354/2019 and Document No.P/Thiruppuvanam/127/2019 by the first respondent is hereby set aside. The first respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner namely the sale deed dated 20.06.2019 if the document is otherwise in order and release the document to the petitioner on registration of the same.

¶31

24.The first respondent is directed to complete the registration within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent in the writ petition, namely, the Joint commissioner, HR&CE Department, Sivagangai filed this Writ Appeal.

¶33

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

¶34

4/10

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶36

3.The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated all the

¶37

contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Writ Appeal and called upon this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal as prayed for.

¶38

4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner pointed out that pursuant to the direction given by the learned single Judge, the document in question had already been registered and released. He pointed out that the purchaser is not a party to these proceedings. He also submitted that the appellant not having filed any counter before the writ Court cannot be permitted to urge any point on facts. He also seriously opposed the petition for impleading filed by Sivagangai Devasthanam. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the property in question had been endowed for a religious institution. According to him, at best a charge had been created and the purchaser is obliged to fulfil the terms of the charge. If at all, the objectors have to go to the civil Court. It is particularly so because writ petitioner Mayilvel is very much having patta in his favour. It is relevant to note that his predecessors were given patta under the The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

¶39

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

¶40

5/10

¶41

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶42

5.The learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioner argued that as per the revenue record, Survey No.101/3, Thirubuhavanam stands only in the name of a water charity (Thanner Panthal). According to him, vide Document No.231/1969, this land was specifically endowed in favour of a religious institution.

¶43

6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record.

¶44

7.The Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135 (Sudha Ravi Kumar & Others Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and Others) had held that whenever any objection is received from a religious institution, a particular procedure has to be adopted by the registering authority. The directions laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench are as follows:

¶45

“26. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:

¶46

"(i) The registering authority before whom the document has been presented shall cause service of notice on the parties to the deeds and also to the

¶47

6/10

¶48

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

¶49

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶50

objector/religious institution, hold summary enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or refuse to register the document by passing an order having regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.

¶51

(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register any document by accepting the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the Act.

¶52

(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Act by the religious institution are rejected and the document is registered, the remedy for the religious institution is to either approach this Court by way of a writ petition seeking cancellation of the registration or for any other relief or to approach the civil Court for declaration of the title and for other consequential reliefs.

¶53

(iv) If the registering authority refuses to register the document acting on the objections raised by a religious institution under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the parties to the deed will be at liberty to straightaway approach the Civil Court for declaration of title and other relief without availing the opportunity for filing a statutory appeal.

¶54

(v) We further direct that if the deed has already been registered without there being any objection by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the document shall be returned to the parties concerned

¶55

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

¶56

7/10

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶58

leaving it open for the religious institution to approach either the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Civil Court for appropriate relief as indicated above. At any rate, the registering authority shall not withhold the deed which has already been registered.

¶59

(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs."”

¶60

8.In the case on hand, the HR&CE Department had lodged their objection. But neither the registering authority nor the appellate authority held any enquiry as laid down in Sudha Ravi Kumar case. We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge should have set aside the refusal check slip issued by the registering authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. A direction for registering the document could not have been issued. We are therefore obliged to interfere. Since it is brought to our notice that the document has since been registered and released, further transactions will not be entertained by the registering authority and the rights of the parties would abide by the outcome of the enquiry that is to be conducted in terms of Sudha Ravi Kumar direction.

¶61

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

¶62

8/10

¶63

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021

¶64

9.In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned single

¶65

Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent herein. The second respondent will issue notices to the purchaser Mohammed Muthu, the vendor K.Mayilvel, the appellant herein as well as the impleading petitioner. During the enquiry, the parties herein will be permitted to place their respective cases before the registering authority. The registering authority shall conclude the enquiry and pass a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, it is for the parties to workout their rights in the manner laid down in Sudha Ravi Kumar decision. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. The contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶66

10.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶67

[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 18.03.2025

¶68

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶69

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

¶70

9/10

¶71

W.A.(MD)No.1539 of 2021