Disposed¶6

K.Shanmugam v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC23 Jun 2025WP/21948/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal check slip; refusal of registration; Settlement Deed 20.03.2025; temple land; Government land; Sub Registrar Moolanur SRO Tiruppur; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963; ryotwari patta; Section 22-A Registration Act; religious institution objection; summary enquiry guidelines; Sudha Ravi Kumar 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 19191; writ disposed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Refusal Check Slip set aside; petitioner permitted to re-present the Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025 for registration, to be registered if otherwise in order; any refusal on the temple-land premise must follow the Sudha Ravi Kumar enquiry procedure. Writ petition disposed of; no costs. ¶6

K.Shanmugam Vs the Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the Refusal Check Slip issued by the 1st respondent refusing registration of the Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025 on the ground that the subject property is Government land/Temple land is sustainable, and whether the deed ought to be registered.

¶3.4

Court's answer

In view of the Sudha Ravi Kumar framework and the Special Government Pleader's submission, the impugned refusal order is set aside; the petitioner may re-present the Settlement Deed for registration, and on such representation it would be registered if otherwise in order.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

If the registering authority seeks to refuse the Settlement Deed on the premise that the subject property is temple lands, the procedure contemplated under Sudha Ravi Kumar's case shall be complied with, and it is open to the petitioner to furnish documents to establish his title.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Mohammed Shaffiq, J.), writ petition disposed of (23.06.2025): A writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 challenged the Refusal Check Slip (RFL/Moolanur/14/2025 dated 20.03.2025) by which the Sub Registrar, Moolanur SRO, Tiruppur District refused registration of a Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025 executed in favour of the petitioner's son, on the ground that the property in S.F.No.544, Punjaithalaiyur Village, was Government/Temple land. Tracing title through pattas flowing from a 1973 Minor Inam Tribunal order (C.M.A.No.678 of 1971) under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, and relying on the Division Bench decision in Sudha Ravi Kumar v. Special Commissioner, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 19191 (registrar bound to act on the ryotwari patta; Section 22-A objections by religious institutions to be met by notice, summary enquiry and appeal/civil-court remedies), the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed re-presentation of the deed for registration if otherwise in order, and directed that any refusal on the temple-land premise must comply with the Sudha Ravi Kumar procedure, leaving the petitioner free to furnish further title documents. No costs.

¶1

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No. 21948 of 2025

K.Shanmugam

... Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Moolanur SRO, Tiruppur District.

¶11

A/m. Angalamman Thirukoil, Represented by its Executive Officer, Punjai Thalaiyur, Dharapuram taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Moolanur/14/2025 dated 20.03.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025 executed by the petitioner in favour of petitioner's son S.Vijayakumar, in respect of the property measuring 30 cents comprised in S.F.No.544, Punjaithalaiyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.Manokaran

¶15

For R1 : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶19

For R2 : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken

¶22

up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶23

2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Moolanur/14/2025 dated 20.03.2025 passed by the 1 st respondent, and consequently direct the 1 st respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025 executed by the petitioner in favour of petitioner's son S.Vijayakumar, in respect of the property comprised in S.F.No.544, Punjaithalaiyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶24

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property comprised in S .F.No.544, admeasuring 18.25 acres, situated in Punjaithaliyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District, was orignally granted as unenfranchised Devadayam Minor Inam Lands to the 2^nd respondent as per the TD No.1322. Subsequently, the entire extent in S.F. No.544 was

¶25

2/9

¶26

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

¶27

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶28

vested with the Government, pursuant to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act), 1963 (hereinafter referred

¶29

to as “the Act”) . However, the lands were under possession and enjoyment of Mr.K.S.Nachimuthugounder and Mr.R. Muthusamygounder. It is further submitted that Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, initiated suo moto proceedings in S.R.No.2864/1970/MI Act/Dharapuram Taluk, wherein Mr.K.S.Nachimuthugounder and Mr.R.Muthusamygounder made a claim that they continued to be in legal possession of the lands by way of Kudivaram right and that they are eligible to get Ryotwari Patta. Settlement Tahsildar passed an order dated 29.09.1970, accepting the claim of the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the order Mr.K.S.Nachimuthugounder and Mr.R.Muthusamygounder filed C.M.A.No.678 of 1971, before the Sub Court/Minor Inam Tribunal, Coimbatore

¶30

and the same was allowed on 30.01.1973, wherein it was held as under:

¶31

"Settlement Tahsildar, Gobi do issue patta to the appellants in respect of 18.25 acres in S. No. 544 of Punjaithalaiyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk under Sec. 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act subject to payment of consideration as may be prescribed under the Rules, and that the appellants do pay to R2, a sum of Rs. 15/- for costs"

¶32

3.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant

¶33

to the above order, the Settlement Tahsildar issued an order in CR 142/72, cancelling the patta granted to the 2^nd respondent under Sec. 8(2)(ii) of the Act and granted patta to Mr.K.S.Nachimuthugounder and Mr.R.Muthusamygounder

¶34

3/9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶37

under Sec. 8(2)(i) (b) of the Act, 1963. Subsequently,

¶38

Mr.K.S.Nachimuthugounder and Mr.R.Muthusamygounder partitioned the property vide partition deed in Doc. No.1511/1959, dated 02.12.1959, wherein R.Muthusamygounder 9.12 ½ acres and K.S.Nachimuthugounder was allotted remaining 9.12 ½ acres. Accordingly, they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective property.

¶39

3.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the demise of Mr.R.Muthusamygounder, his share of property was inherited by his son, M.Chandrasekaran, and grandson, C.Velmurugan. Petitioner purchased said property from M.Chandrasekaran and C.Velmurugan by way of a sale deed dated in Doc.No.274/2009 dated 26.02.2009 and mutation was effected in Patta No.341 dated 10.01.2016.

¶40

3.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner executed a Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025, in favour of his son, S.Vijayakumar and presented it for registration. However, 1^st respondent had refused to register the settlement deed by issuing impugned Refusal Check Slip order dated 20.03.2025. The reason stated in the refusal check slip is as under:

¶41

“muR epyk;-,e;J mwepiya Ml;rpj;Jiw-t`f;g; thhpak;-g{kpjhd epyk;-g?;rkp epy';fs; nghd;wit”

¶42

4/9

¶43

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

¶44

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶45

3.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason

¶46

stated by 1 st respondent in refusal slip that the subject property is Government Land/Temple Land is wholly erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner and others, reported in, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 19191, wherein it was held that registrar is bound to act on the basis of the Ryotwari patta issued by the authority concerned and the authority shall not refuse to register and certain guidelines has also been issued as to the manner in which the registering authority ought to have conducted an enquiry if there is any objections raised by temple authorities. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶47

“24. ..... Therefore, in our considered view, once patta has been issued under either the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 it is for the temple to establish its title before the Civil Court. The registrar is bound to act on the basis of the ryotwari patta issued by the authority concerned and he shall not refuse to register the said deeds. As we have already pointed out the remedy for the religious institution is to approach the civil court for appropriate remedy.”

¶48

5/9

¶49

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

¶50

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶51

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

¶52

(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 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.

¶53

(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.

¶54

(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.

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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 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.

¶57

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

¶58

When this was pointed out the learned Special Government Pleader

¶59

appearing for 1^st respondent would submit that they would go through the

¶60

6/9

¶61

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

¶62

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶63

procedure contemplated in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar, whereby they will conduct an enquiry and thereafter the decide the petitioner's request for registration.

¶64

5. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside. It is open to the

¶65

petitioner to re-present the Settlement Deed for registration. On such representation the same would be registered if it is otherwise in order. If for any reason the Settlement Deed is sought to be refused by the registering authority on the premise that the subject property is temple lands, then the procedure contemplated under Sudha Ravi Kumar's case shall be complied with. It is always open to the petitioner to furnish documents to establish his title.

¶66

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶67

23.06.2025

¶68

spp Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶69

To:

¶70

The Sub Registrar, Moolanur SRO,

¶71

7/9

¶72

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

¶73

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶74

Tiruppur District.

¶75

8/9

¶76

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

¶77

W.P. No.21948 of 2025

¶78

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶79

spp

¶80

W.P. No. 21948 of 2025

¶81

23.06.2025

¶82

9/9

¶83

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Moolanur/14/2025 dated 20.03.2025 issued by the 1st respondent (Sub Registrar, Moolanur SRO) refusing registration of the petitioner's Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025, on the stated ground that the subject property is Government land/Temple land.¶2
Sub Registrar, Moolanur SRO, Tiruppur District · 20.03.2025
Prior proceeding
By consent of learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.¶21
Prior proceeding
Per counsel for petitioner, the land in S.F.No.544 (18.25 acres), Punjaithaliyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District, was originally granted as unenfranchised Devadayam Minor Inam Lands.¶3
Prior proceeding
The entire extent in S.F.No.544 vested with the Government pursuant to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.¶3
Prior proceeding
Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam initiated suo motu proceedings in S.R.No.2864/1970/MI Act/Dharapuram Taluk, in which K.S.Nachimuthugounder and R.Muthusamygounder claimed continued legal possession by Kudivaram right and eligibility for Ryotwari Patta.¶3
Prior proceeding
The Settlement Tahsildar passed an order dated 29.09.1970, stated by counsel to have accepted the claim of the 2nd respondent.¶3
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the Tahsildar's order, K.S.Nachimuthugounder and R.Muthusamygounder filed C.M.A.No.678 of 1971 before the Sub Court/Minor Inam Tribunal, Coimbatore.¶3
Prior proceeding
The C.M.A. was allowed on 30.01.1973.¶3
Prior proceeding
Operative direction of the Minor Inam Tribunal (quoted in the judgment): patta to be issued to the appellants in respect of 18.25 acres in S.No.544 under Sec. 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act, subject to prescribed payment, with Rs.15/- costs payable to R2.¶3
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Tribunal order, the Settlement Tahsildar issued an order in CR 142/72 cancelling the patta granted to the 2nd respondent under Sec. 8(2)(ii) and granting patta to K.S.Nachimuthugounder and R.Muthusamygounder under Sec. 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act.¶3.1
Prior proceeding
Nachimuthugounder and Muthusamygounder partitioned the property by partition deed Doc. No.1511/1959 dated 02.12.1959, allotting 9.12 1/2 acres each.¶3.1
Prior proceeding
After the demise of R.Muthusamygounder, his share was inherited by his son M.Chandrasekaran and grandson C.Velmurugan.¶3.2
Prior proceeding
The petitioner purchased the property from M.Chandrasekaran and C.Velmurugan by sale deed Doc.No.274/2009 dated 26.02.2009; mutation effected in Patta No.341 dated 10.01.2016.¶3.2
Prior proceeding
The petitioner executed a Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2025 in favour of his son S.Vijayakumar and presented it for registration; the 1st respondent refused registration by issuing the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 20.03.2025.¶3.3
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the refusal-slip reason (property is Government Land/Temple Land) is wholly erroneous and relied on the Division Bench decision in Sudha Ravi Kumar; counsel argued the registrar is bound to act on the ryotwari patta and shall not refuse registration.¶3.4
Prior proceeding
The learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent submitted that the respondents would follow the procedure contemplated in Sudha Ravi Kumar - conducting an enquiry and thereafter deciding the petitioner's request for registration.¶4

K.Shanmugam v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shanmugam v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Girija Vs the District Collector

N.D.Sridhar Vs the District Collector

Sudha M Vs the Tahsildar

Balamurali Vs the Tahsildar

K.v.Sorubarani Vs the District Collector

A.Subha Vs the District Collector