Disposed¶44

T.Sri Harimuthu Pandiyan v. the Administrative General and

Madras HC25 Mar 2025WP/15758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal check slip; Sub Registrar Gobichettypalayam SRO; refusal to register sale agreement; trust property; Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities; Administrative General and Official Trustee (AGOT); land ceiling; G.O.Ms.No.232 Revenue dated 18.02.1984; surplus land; land reforms proceedings; status quo; W.A.No.1732 of 2024; C.M.P.No.12183 of 2024; Writ Petition No.16776 of 2022; lease deed dated 19.08.2021; Sri Sivaguru Garden layout; Lakkampatti Village; Gobichettypalayam Taluk; Erode District; impleadment in pending writ appeal; writ petition disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with clarity that the petitioner may implead himself in the pending WA.No.1732 of 2024 and work out his remedy; no costs awarded. ¶44

T.Sri Harimuthu Pandiyan Vs the Administrative… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with clarity that the petitioner may implead himself in the pending WA.No.1732 of 2024 and work out his remedy; no costs awarded.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal check slip dated 09.08.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent refusing registration of the document pertaining to the subject property should be quashed and the 3rd respondent directed to register the Plots/Shop in Survey Nos. 107 A Part, 107 B Part and 108/2A in the layout Sri Sivaguru Garden, Lakkampatti Village. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

It is not necessary to go into the dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the extent of property to which each party is entitled.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The entire 1 acre and 86 cents is now the subject matter of land reforms proceedings pending before the Division Bench in WA.No.1732 of 2024, and the subject property falls within the surplus lands.

¶42

Key takeaways

Since the Division Bench has directed status quo to be maintained, there is no question of dealing with the property and the Sub Registrar cannot entertain any document and register the same pertaining to the subject property.ratio¶42
Even if the refusal check slip is interfered with, the 3rd respondent cannot entertain the document since the writ appeal is pending and an interim order maintaining status quo has been granted; it is left open to the petitioner to implead himself in the pending writ appeal WA.No.1732 of 2024 and work out his remedy, and the parties can contemplate dealing with the property only after completion of the proceedings and if the order in the writ petition is confirmed in the writ appeal.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), Writ Petition No.15758 of 2024, decided 25.03.2025 — Registration refused; refusal check slip; land ceiling proceedings. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash a refusal check slip dated 09.08.2023 issued by the Sub Registrar, Gobichettypalayam SRO, refusing registration of a sale agreement for Plot No.1 (4130 Sq.ft.) in the approved layout 'Sri Sivaguru Garden', Lakkampatti Village (Survey Nos. 107 A Part, 107 B Part, 108/2A — 2 acres 25 cents), on the ground that the property belongs to a Trust. The Administrative General and Official Trustee (AGOT) reported that the entire 1.86 acres in S.F.No.107/B had been acquired for the trust estate 'Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities' under G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue, dated 18.02.1984 (Land Ceiling Act); AGOT's Writ Petition No.16776 of 2022 quashing that G.O. succeeded on 22.12.2023, but the Government's W.A.No.1732 of 2024 with C.M.P.No.12183 of 2024 is pending before the Division Bench with status quo directed. Holding that the entire 1 acre 86 cents is the subject matter of the pending land reforms proceedings and falls within surplus lands, the Court held that the Sub Registrar cannot entertain or register any document pertaining to the subject property, and that interfering with the refusal check slip would not enable registration. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving the petitioner free to implead himself in W.A.No.1732 of 2024 and work out his remedy; the parties may contemplate dealing with the property only after completion of the appeal proceedings and if the order quashing the G.O. is confirmed. No costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.03.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Writ Petition No.15758 of 2024

¶6

Mr.T.Sri Harimuthu Pandiyan Rep.by his Power Holder Mr.G.Thangakumar

¶7

…. Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The Administrative General and Official Trustee (AGOT)

¶10

High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Land Reforms Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar of Registration Gobichettypalayam SRO Erode District.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent refusing to register in his refusal check slip No. RFL /1 / No Joint SRO Gobichettypalayam / 123 / 2023 dated 09.08.2023 and quash the same and consequently direction is given to the 3rd respondent to register the Plots / Shop in Survey Nos. 107 A Part 107 B Part and 108/2A measuring an extent of 2 acres and 25 cents in the layout Sri Sivaguru Garden situated in Lakkampatti Village, Gobichettypalayam Taluk Erode District.

¶15

1 / 8

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.E.V.Chandru for R1

¶19

Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.08.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent and for a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to register the sale deeds presented for registration pertaining to the subject property.

¶22

2.The case of the petitioner is that out of 1 acre and 86 cents in Survey No.107B, the petitioner's grandfather had purchased an extent of 1 acre and 6 cents through a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1958 registered as Document No.2354/1958. The remaining 80 cents was purchased by one Palaniyappa Chettiar through a registered sale deed Document No.1653/1957. Apart from the said property, the petitioner's grandfather had also purchased another piece of land in Survey No.108. During his lifetime, the petitioner's grandfather sold 1 acre in Survey No.108 through a registered sale deed dated 08.12.1976.

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

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

¶25

3.The petitioner's grandfather and grandmother had executed a Will dated 27.07.1987, bequeathing the properties in the name of the petitioner. After their demise in the year 2002 and 1996 respectively, the petitioner became entitled to the property.

¶26

4.The petitioner wanted to promote a layout and accordingly, sought for the approval and the approval was also granted. All the residential plots were sold except for Plot No.1 measuring an extent of 4130 Sq.ft. He entered into a sale agreement and when this document was presented for registration before the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent refused to register the document by stating that it belongs to a Trust. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶27

5.The 1^st respondent filed a report before this Court on 10.03.2025. In the report, the 1^st respondent has taken the following stand:

¶28

8.The 1^st respondent further submits that, the property in Survey No.107 in Lakkampatti Village is also included in the Will and Scheme Decree framed by the Hon'ble Sub-Court Gobichettipalayam. It is learnt that, in Survey No.107, the Palaniappa Chettiar purchased 80 cents in the year 1957 as per the Encumbrance Certificate, in which it was mention as S.F.No.107/B. But, Hon'ble Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam mentioned the property as S.F.No.107. When the office of AG & OT during the process of identifying the trust lands in the

¶29

3 / 8

¶30

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

¶31

year 2021, the property was under the use of this writ petitioner. The writ petitioner requested the 1^st respondent/AG & OT to lease the land to him for rent. Therefore, the O/o. AG & OT executed a lease deed to the writ petitioner on 19.08.2021 for an extent of 93 ¼ Cents.

¶32

9.The 1^st respondent further submits that, in the year 1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu has acquired some of the properties belong to the Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities by way of land acquisition through G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue, dated 18.02.1984 in which the Government has acquired vide land reform proceedings, the entire 1.86 Acres of lands in S.F.No.107/B in Lakkampatty Village belongs to the Trust estate Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities under Land Ceiling Act.

¶33

10.The 1^st respondent submits that, the impugned G.O.Was challenged by the office of AG & OT through Writ Petition No.16776 of 2022, in which the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to quash the G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue, Dated 18.02.1984 by its order on 22.12.2023. Aggrieved upon the same, the Government has filed in Writ Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court as W.A.No.1732 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12183 of 2024, in which the Hon'ble High Court has ordered status quo and the same is pending till date.

¶34

4 / 8

¶35

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

¶36

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st respondent cannot claim any right beyond 80 cents and that the petitioner is the absolute owner of remaining 1 acre and 6 cents. Therefore, the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to entertain the document pertaining to the property which absolutely belongs to the petitioner.

¶37

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent submitted that the entire 1.86 acres became a subject matter of land reforms proceedings and the relevant G.O., came to be challenged by the 1^st respondent in WP.No.16776 of 2022. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated 22.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the Government has filed an appeal in WA.No.1732 of 2024 and this writ appeal was entertained and an interim order was passed to maintain status quo. This writ appeal is pending.

¶38

8.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent further submitted that the 1^st respondent has also executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner dated 19.08.2021 for an extent of 93 ¼ cents for a period of two years from 01.08.2022. In view of the same, it was contended that there is no clarity on the extent of property that is claimed by the petitioner.

¶39

9.In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary to go into the dispute

¶40

5 / 8

¶41

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

¶42

between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent on the extent of property to which each party is entitled. The fact remains that the entire 1 acre and 86 cents is now a subject matter of land reforms proceedings and the case is pending before the Division Bench in WA.No.1732 of 2024. In view of the same, there is no question of dealing with the property since the subject property falls within the surplus lands. The Division Bench has also directed status quo to be maintained. As a result, the Sub Registrar cannot entertain any document and register the same pertaining to the subject property.

¶43

10.In view of the above development, even if the refusal check slip is interfered, the 3^rd respondent cannot entertain the document since the writ appeal is pending and interim order has been granted to maintain status quo. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioner to implead himself in the pending writ appeal in WA.No.1732 of 2024 and workout his remedy. Only after the completion of the proceedings and if in the event of the order passed in the writ petition getting confirmed in the writ appeal, the parties can even contemplate dealing with the property. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition.

¶44

11.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶45

6 / 8

¶46

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

¶47

25.03.2025

¶48

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶49

¶50

1.The Administrative General and Official Trustee (AGOT)

¶51

High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104.

¶52

2.The Commissioner of Land Reforms Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

¶53

3.The Sub Registrar of Registration Gobichettypalayam SRO Erode District.

¶54

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶55

¶56

7 / 8

¶57

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

¶58

Writ Petition No.15758 of 2024

¶59

25.03.2025

¶60

8 / 8

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Refusal check slip No. RFL /1 / No Joint SRO Gobichettypalayam / 123 / 2023 dated 09.08.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent (Sub Registrar) refusing to register the document presented for registration pertaining to the subject property.¶21
3rd respondent - Sub Registrar of Registration, Gobichettypalayam SRO, Erode District · 09.08.2023
Prior proceeding
Out of 1 acre 86 cents in Survey No.107B, petitioner's grandfather purchased 1 acre 6 cents through registered sale deed dated 29.08.1958 (Document No.2354/1958); remaining 80 cents purchased by Palaniyappa Chettiar (Document No.1653/1957); grandfather also held and later sold 1 acre in Survey No.108.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's grandfather and grandmother executed a Will dated 27.07.1987 bequeathing the properties to the petitioner; they died in 1996 and 2002.¶25
Prior proceeding
Layout approval was granted; all residential plots sold except Plot No.1 (4130 Sq.ft.); the sale agreement presented for registration was refused by the 3rd respondent on the ground that the property belongs to a Trust.¶26
Prior proceeding
The 1st respondent (AGOT) filed a report before this Court setting out its stand.¶27
Prior proceeding
O/o. AG & OT executed a lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner on 19.08.2021 for an extent of 93 1/4 Cents (per 1st respondent's report).¶31
Prior proceeding
By G.O.Ms.No.232, Revenue, dated 18.02.1984, the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired properties of Palaniappa Chettiar and Rangammal Charities by land reform proceedings; the entire 1.86 acres in S.F.No.107/B, Lakkampatty Village was treated as belonging to the trust estate under the Land Ceiling Act (per 1st respondent's report).¶32
Prior proceeding
AG & OT challenged G.O.Ms.No.232 in Writ Petition No.16776 of 2022; the High Court quashed the G.O. by order dated 22.12.2023 (per 1st respondent's report).¶33
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the quashing of G.O.Ms.No.232, the Government filed W.A.No.1732 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12183 of 2024 before the High Court (per 1st respondent's report).¶33
Prior proceeding
The writ appeal WA.No.1732 of 2024 is pending before the Division Bench.¶42
Prior proceeding
The Division Bench in WA.No.1732 of 2024 has directed status quo to be maintained.¶42

T.Sri Harimuthu Pandiyan v. the Administrative General and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Sri Harimuthu Pandiyan v. the Administrative General and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.Balasubramanian Vs The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu

M. Subban Rep.by His Powr Vs the Secretary Housing and

S.Jannath Ali Vs the Inspector General of Registration

A.Prabavathi Vs the Sub Registrar

M.Soundararajan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Kandasamy Vs the Inspector General of Registrations