Allowed

P.Raja v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP(MD)/23923/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition against a registrar's refusal to register a sale deed of assigned punja land. The court held revenue authorities cannot restrain registration where the property is not in the prohibitory index, set aside the refusal check slip and directed registration.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip quashed; petitioner may re-present document; third respondent to register the sale deed subject to other formalities.

P.Raja Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.23923 OF 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.23923 of 2025

P.Raja

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

The Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram Sub Registrar Office, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings RFL/Ottapidaram/14/2025 dated 06.03.2025, quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the third respondent to register the sale deed presented by me on 06.03.2025 in respect of punja land to an extent of 1.21.5 Hectares (3 acres) situated in Resurvey No.511/1, Panchalankuruchi Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Tuticorin District comprised in patta No. 1557.

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

2 W.P.(MD)NO.23923 OF 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Banuprasath

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Government Pleader. * * *

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

2.The petitioner is the purchaser of the petition mentioned

¶22

property under sale deed dated 27.03.2006. It was presented for registration before the third respondent. Citing the communication received from the Tahsildar, Ottapidaram to the effect that the petition mentioned property was assigned in favour of the legal heirs of Veerapandiya Kattabomman, registration was refused. Challenging the impugned refusal check slip, this writ petition has been filed.

¶23

3.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res

¶24

integra . It has already been held that the revenue authority cannot restrain the registering authority from discharging his statutory 2/4

¶25

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

¶26

3 W.P.(MD)NO.23923 OF 2025

¶27

function. The petition mentioned property has not been included in

¶28

the prohibitory index. A similar writ petition was allowed by me vide order dated 19.02.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.2799 of 2019

¶29

(R.Saravanakumar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi) . The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also enclosed the orders dealing with raising the same issue.

¶30

4.In this view of the matter, the impugned refusal check slip is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document. The third respondent is directed to register the petition mentioned sale deed subject to fulfilment of other usual formalities.

¶31

5.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶32

02.09.2025

¶33

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

4 W.P.(MD)NO.23923 OF 2025

¶37

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶38

PMU

¶39

To:

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Thoothukudi District.

¶41

The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶42

The Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram Sub Registrar Office, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District.

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.23923 of 2025

¶44

02.09.2025

¶45

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

¶46

4/4

P.Raja v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Raja v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sankaranarayanan Vs The District Collector

S.Selvi Vs The District Collector

K.Mariyappan Vs the District Collector

Karuppasamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Michelraj Vs The Commissionerate of Revenue Administration

S.Pugazhenthi Vs The District Revenue Officer