Partly allowed

Ezhil Nagar Anaithu Makkal Valarchi Mandram v. Stanislas Stalin

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WA(MD)/765/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment disposed of three writ proceedings concerning property registration in Ezhil Nagar, Tiruverumbur. The court dismissed a writ appeal challenging registration of regularized saleable plots, held that no justification exists to refuse registration of duly regularized saleable area documents, quashed a Sub-Registrar's refusal order, and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the d

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition challenging the refusal of the registration check slip and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed within 15 days if in order. Dismissed the writ appeal and disp

Ezhil Nagar Anaithu Makkal Valarchi Mandram Vs Stanislas… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025 W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD)No.5209 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.11277 of 2026

¶8

1.W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025:

¶9

Ezhil Nagar Anaithu Makkal Valarchi Mandram, Represented by its Secretary, S.Rajkumar, No.334/4, Ezhil Nagar, Trichy 620 014. ... Appellant/8

¶10

... Appellant/8^th Respondent

vs.

1.Stanislas Stalin

2.M.Syed Mustafa

3.M.Shamsudeen

... Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners

¶16

4.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶17

1/14

¶18

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

¶19

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶20

5.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Trichy – 620 023. 6.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Trichy. 7.The District Registrar, Trichy. 8.The Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur Registration Office, Trichy District.

¶21

9.The Thiruverumbur Panchayat Union, Through its Commissioner, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.

¶22

10.Krishnasamudram Panchayat, Through its President, Thiruverumbur Panchayat Union, Trichy District. ... Respondents 4 to 10

¶23

11.T. Stephen 12.S.Padma 13.S.Rajaprada 14.A.Prema 15.R.Seetha Lakshmi 16.S.Mohammed Meyakan 17.P.Rajaram 18.S.Kumar 19.R.Muthamilselvi

¶24

2/14

¶25

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

¶26

20.V.Ravi 21.V.Kalidhas 22.C.Palanisamy 23.R.Mumtajbeham 24.R.Gopal 25.J.Raghul 26.M.Malaiappan 27.R.Ganesan 28.M.Ravi 29.R.Jayalakshmi 30.V.Rajasekaran 31.K.Hariharan 32.R.Ganesan 33.S.Selvaraj 34.C.Thomas Rockland 35.D.Kavitha 36.E.Jesulin Immanuel

¶27

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶28

... Respondents 11 to 36

¶29

(R-11 to R-35 are impleaded vide order dated 16.07.2025 made in C.M.P(MD)No.6953 of 2025)

¶30

(R-36 is impleaded vide order dated 16.07.2025 made in C.M.P(MD)No.7249 of 2025)

¶31

PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.01.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.18982 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

¶32

3/14

¶33

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

¶34

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶35

For Appellant : Mr.S.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan (R1 to R3)

¶36

: Mr.C.Jeganathan (R4 to R10) Counsel for State

¶37

: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (R11 to R35) for M/s.P.Thiyagarajan : M/s.G.Sujeetha (R36)

¶38

2.W.P(MD)No.8447 of 2019 :

¶39

Ezhil Nagar Anaithu Makkal Valarchi Mandram, (Reg.No.85/2005) Represented by its General Secretary, S.Rajkumar, S/o Selvaraj, Ezhil Nagar, Thiruvarambur Taluk, Trichy. ... Petitioner

¶40

vs.

¶41

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶42

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Khajamalai Colony, Khajamalai Main Road, Tiruchirappalli 620 023.

¶43

4/14

¶44

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

¶45

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶46

3.The Assistant Director (Panchayat), O/o. of the District Collector's Office, Tiruchirappalli.

¶47

4.The District Registrar, District Court Campus, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli.

¶48

5.The Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur Sub Registrar Office, Tiruchirappalli.

¶49

6.Krishna Samudram Panchayat, Represented by its Special Officer, Thiruverumbur Panchayat Union, Thiruverumbur, Tiruchirappalli.

¶50

7.Tiruverumbur Panchayat Union, Represented by its Commissioner, Tiruverumbur, Trichy - 13.

¶51

8.Stanislas Stalin 9.M.Syed Mustafa 10.M.Shamsudeen ... Respondents

¶52

(R-8 to R-10 are impleaded vide order dated 01.07.2025 in W.M.P(MD)No.2065 of 2023)

¶53

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to

¶54

5/14

¶55

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

¶56

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶57

remove the encroachments made in the public streets, public utility spaces allotted in the approved layouts and in the other public spaces as provided in the approved layouts in Ezhil Nagar, Tiruverumbur, Tiruchirappalli District and cancel the illegal registration of sale deeds pertaining to the public utility areas earmarked in the Town and Country Planning Authorities approved layouts in Ezhil Nagar, Tiruverumbur, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶58

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶59

For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan (R1 to R7) Counsel for State

¶60

: Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan (R8 to R10)

¶61

3.W.P(MD)No.14994 of 2026 :

¶62

V.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner

¶63

vs.

¶64

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶65

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent vide Refusal Number RFL/Thiruverumbur/121/2025, dated 12.04.2025, and

¶66

6/14

¶67

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

¶68

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶69

quash the same as illegal and void, consequently issue a direction to the respondent to register the sale deed dated 12.04.2025, in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.612/37, ad-measuring to an extent of 2,400 sq.ft. at Plot No.189, Ezhil Nagar, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶70

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for State

¶71

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶72

[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶73

W.A.(MD) No.765 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order

¶74

of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD) No.18982 of 2022, dated 21.01.2025, whereby the registering authority was directed to receive and register the document presented for registration.

¶75

7/14

¶76

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

¶77

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶78

2.The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 3/writ

¶79

petitioners contending that the subject properties were originally covered under a layout approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (DDTCP) vide Layout Approval No.33 of 1985 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.108 of 1985. Pursuant thereto, 357 plots were formed. As per the approved layout, certain portions were earmarked as Open Space Reservation (OSR) areas, such as roads, parks, children's play areas, etc. Similarly, in the very same layout, an extent of 4,75,498 sq.ft. was earmarked for industrial purposes, such as small-scale industries, cottage industries, trade-related activities and a petrol bunk.

¶80

3.Since the said area could not be developed for the purpose for which it had been reserved, the promoters approached the authorities in the year 2009 seeking permission to form a layout in the saleable area. The proposal was approved by the Panchayat through a resolution and was thereafter forwarded to the DDTCP authorities for approval. Proceedings were issued on 25.01.2018 and 17.07.2018. Subsequently, regularisation

¶81

8/14

¶82

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

¶83

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶84

orders were passed by the competent authorities and the plots were regularised. When the owners sought to alienate the plots and presented documents before the Sub-Registrar for registration, the same were refused. Under such circumstances, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶85

4.The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the saleable area had been converted into plots and that the necessary approvals had been granted, directed the registering authority to register the documents while disposing of the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge also specifically recorded that the areas earmarked for common purposes, namely roads, parks, playgrounds, etc., being non-saleable areas, could never be subject to alienation.

¶86

5.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶87

9/14

¶88

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

¶89

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶90

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would mainly

¶91

contend that the roads earmarked for public use, which had vested with the

¶92

Panchayat, were also plotted out and that encroachments had been made thereon.

¶93

7.We directed the appellant to point out the nature of the alleged

¶94

encroachment and to produce supporting documents. However, except for producing the original approved layout plan and an unauthenticated sketch,

¶95

no document has been placed before us to substantiate the allegation.

¶96

8.The main grievance of the appellant is that the areas earmarked

¶97

as roads have been encroached upon.

¶98

9.In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has already made it clear that the portions originally earmarked in the approved layout for road purposes cannot be alienated. We are also of the view that it

¶99

10/14

¶100

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

¶101

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶102

is for the local body authorities to verify whether any encroachment exists in the areas earmarked for public purposes and, if any such encroachment is found, the same shall be removed in accordance with law.

¶103

10.Insofar as the regularisation of the plots is concerned, the regularisation has been granted only in respect of the available saleable area. Once the plots have been duly regularised by the competent authority, there cannot be any justification for refusing registration of documents relating thereto. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, W.A.(MD) No.765 of 2025 stands dismissed .

¶104

11.In view of the order passed in W.A.(MD) No.765 of 2025, W.P.(MD) No.8447 of 2019 is disposed of , as we have already directed the local body authorities to remove any encroachment found in the areas earmarked for public purposes, such as roads, parks, etc.

¶105

11/14

¶106

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

¶107

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶108

12.In view of the order passed in W.A.(MD) No.765 of 2025, the

¶109

impugned order dated 12.04.2025 passed by the Sub-Registrar, which is under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.14994 of 2026, is hereby quashed. Consequently, W.P.(MD)No.14994 of 2026 is allowed and the Sub-Registrar is directed to register the document, if it is otherwise in order, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of its presentation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶110

[N.S.K.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.] 18.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps

¶111

12/14

¶112

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

¶113

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶114

¶115

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Trichy – 620 023. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Trichy. 4.The District Registrar, Trichy. 5.The Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur Registration Office, Trichy District.

¶116

6.The Thiruverumbur Panchayat Union, Through its Commissioner, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.

¶117

7.The President, Krishnasamudram Panchayat, Thiruverumbur Panchayat Union, Trichy District.

¶118

8.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.

¶119

13/14

¶120

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

¶121

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶122

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J. and P.B.BALAJI,J.

¶123

¶124

W.A(MD)No.765 of 2025, W.P(MD)Nos.8447 of 2019 & 14994 of 2026

¶125

DATED : 18.06.2026

¶126

14/14

¶127

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

Ezhil Nagar Anaithu Makkal Valarchi Mandram v. Stanislas Stalin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ezhil Nagar Anaithu Makkal Valarchi Mandram v. Stanislas Stalin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaja Mohaideen Vs The District Collector

Gtl Infrastrcture Limited Vs S.Seenivasan

H.Abdul Razack Vs The District Collector

The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Vs K.Muthuselvan

The Joint Commissioner, Vs K. Balasubramanian

V.C.Manimurasu Vs The District Collector