Allowed

Josh v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35894/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Municipal Corporation's paper publication and consequential order directing the Sub-Registrar not to register sale deeds for his lands near a sewage treatment plant. The Court held such refusal was illegal since acquisition could proceed with compensation, quashed the order, and directed registration without insisting on a no objection certificate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned publication and order set aside; third respondent directed to register petitioner's sale deed on re-presentation without NOC from second respondent.

Josh Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.35894 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.28534 & 28535 of 2025

Josh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶13

Dindigul District,

¶14

Dindigul.

¶15

2.The Commissioner,

¶16

Dindigul City Municipal Corporation,

¶17

Dindigul District.

¶18

3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.II,

¶19

Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the paper publication issued by the

¶21

1/7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶24

second respondent vide his proceedings in paper publication Na.Ka.No.1771/2024/F1 dated 22.06.2022 and consequential order passed by the second respondent vide his proceeding in Na.Ka.No. 5577/2025/F1 dated 08.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the third respondent to register the documents in respect of his landed property totaling extent of Acre 1 cents 73 comprised in Survey Nos.788/1B, 788/2B, 788/3C, 788/4, 788/3A, 788/3B undivided 48/96 share out of an extent of 86 ½ cents out of the total extent of 1 Acre 73 cents classified as Punja lands situated at Sithalakundu Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District and vacant agriculture punja land of an extent undivided 48/96 share of 18 cents out of the total extent of 36 cents comprised No.584/A1, an extent undivided 26/96 share of 18 cents out of the total extent of 36 cents comprised in Survey No.584/A2 situated at Pallapatti Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District of without insisting “No Objection Certificate” from the second respondent.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Shajahan For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.J.Lawrance Standing Counsel

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

A challenge has been made to the impugned paper publication issued by the second respondent vide his proceedings in paper publication Na.Ka.No.1771/2024/F1 dated 22.06.2022 and consequential order passed by the second respondent vide his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.5577/2025/F1 dated 08.08.2025 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to register the document presented by the petitioner for registration.

¶31

2 . With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶32

3 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner intended to sell the property to set-right his loss in the business but the third respondent refused to register the sale deed citing the reason that a paper publication has been issued by the second respondent not to register the properties. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶33

4 . However, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that, in the present case, adjacent

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶37

to the subject property there is a sewage treatment plant established by the Municipality and now the Pollution Control Board is insisting upon a condition that the second respondent is supposed to maintain certain extent of vacant lands in and around the sewage treatment plant with greenery and only for that purpose they intend to acquire the subject properties. Therefore, they have refused to issue no objection as requested by the petitioner.

¶38

5 . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶39

6 . Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, this Court finds that the second respondent Municipality is intending to acquire the lands in and around the sewage treatment plant. If they intend to acquire the lands, they can very well proceed with the acquisition proceedings, rather simply serving a communication to the Sub-Registrar stating not to register any sale deeds is illegal. Even if the land is sold by the petitioner, the second respondent Municipality can very well acquire the lands after payment of compensation to the land owners. Such being the case, I do not find any impediment for the second respondent in allowing the petitioner to sell the property to third parties. Hence, I do not find any justification in rejecting the

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶43

petitioner's request for registration of the sale deed by the third respondent and also demanding no objection certificate from the second respondent.

¶44

7 . In a similar circumstances, in W.P.(MD)Nos.6344 & 6396 of 2022 dated 09.06.2022, this Court has quashed the impugned order and allowed those Writ Petitions. Following the same, the order impugned herein is set aside and the third respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, immediately when it is re-presented.

¶45

8 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

16.12.2025

¶47

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No MR

¶48

5/7

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶51

¶52

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶53

2.The Commissioner, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Dindigul District.

¶54

3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶55

6/7

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.(MD) No.35894 of 2025

¶58

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶59

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.35894 of 2025

¶61

16.12.2025

¶62

7/7

¶63

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

Josh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Josh v. The District Collector

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

Lakshumanan .R Vs The District Collector

Syedsirajudeen Vs Deputy Commercial tax officer

Mathina Vs The Secretary to Government

Savithri Vs The District Collector

D.Sureshbabu Vs The Secretary to Government

Tvl.Jeya Traders, Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-2