Disposed

Noorjahan Begam v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC16 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25236/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Tahsildar's communication barring registration of conveyances over specified survey numbers proposed for acquisition. Following an earlier order on the same communication, the court set aside its effect and directed registration authorities to process conveyance requests without refusing them on that basis.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 05.05.2017 not to be acted upon; first and second respondents to receive and process conveyance requests for the subject lands; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition

Noorjahan Begam Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 16.09.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.25236 of 2025 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)No.19780 of 2025

¶7

Noorjahan Begam

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

The Inspector General of Registration, Door No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028.

¶10

The Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Indian Naval Station (Parundu), Ramanathapuram.

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is 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 dated 05.05.2017 in Roc.A1/ 15 /2017 passed by the third respondent addressed to the second respondent so far as Survey Nos.225/ 1B1 , 225 /1B2, 227/1F, 227/ 1G1, 227/ 1H, 227/ 1I, 227/ 1J2, 227 / 1K, 227/ 1L, 227/ 1M, 227 /1N and 227 /1O, Perungulam Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District is concerned and quash the same and consequentially

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

to direct the second respondent to register the documents executed in respect of the subject properties.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

By this writ petition, the petitioner assails an order dated 05.05.2017 of the third respondent precluding registration of conveyances relating to the survey numbers mentioned therein.

¶20

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an earlier order dated 30.06.2025 in W.P(MD)No.167 of 2025, wherein the same communication was challenged successfully.

¶21

3.Learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. By relying on the written instructions received in September 2025, he submits that the guideline value for lands, including the lands forming the subject of this writ petition, have been fixed in relation to the proposed acquisition for the northern runway extension project for the Airport.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

4.In the earlier order of this Court, in relevant part, it was recorded as

¶25

under:-

¶26

“ Though the impugned communication issued by the third respondent, which post was abolished as early as 05.05.2017, no acquisition notifications have been issued for the past eight years. In these circumstances, there is no justification in giving effect to the impugned communication of the third respondent, that too even after abolition of the said post. Therefore, the impugned communication of the third respondent is set aside. However, liberty is given to the revenue officials concerned to send a new communication to the second respondent in case concrete steps are taken for issuance of acquisition notification in future.”

¶27

5.I concur fully with the above conclusion. Accordingly, by leaving it open to the third respondent to take further steps in relation to the acquisition, the first and second respondents shall receive and process any request for conveyance relating to lands forming the subject matter of this writ petition, without refusing such request on the basis of impugned communication dated 05.05.2017. This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶28

16.09.2025

¶29

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶33

RJR

¶34

¶35

The Inspector General of Registration, Door No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028. 2. The Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Indian Naval Station (Parundu), Ramanathapuram.

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.25236 of 2025

¶37

16.09.2025

¶38

4/4

¶39

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

Noorjahan Begam v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorjahan Begam v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalanjiyam Vs The District Revenue Officer

Mari Vs The District Collector

T.Pasumpon Vs The Tashildhar

Malayala Sastha Ayyanar Temple Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Thukkaiyannan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Mohammed Abdullah Vs The Tahsildar