The Joint Commissioner Vs M/s.Ark Engineering and Power Consultants Pvt. Limited Company

Pvt Limited Company, Rep.by its Director, B.Nagarajan, S/o.Balasubramanian, 13/1, Kaveri Nagar, Mangamma Nagar Extension, Srirangam Post, Tiruchirappalli-620 006.

¶15

2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-14.

¶16

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Srirangam.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

1/7

¶19

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

¶20

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2026

¶22

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.622 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025.

¶23

For Appellant : Mr.M.Sankaralingam For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran (R1) Mr.M.S.Parthiban (R2 & R3) Counsel for State

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶26

Challenge has been made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in and by which the refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar refusing to register the sale deed presented by the writ petitioner, was set aside.

¶27

2.The writ petitioner presented the sale deed with regard to the subject property before the Sub Registrar, Srirangam. The same was refused to be registered on the objection raised by the appellant Temple stating that the subject property belongs to the Temple. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed.

¶28

2/7

¶29

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

¶30

W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2026

¶31

3.The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and

¶32

circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar concerned and also with a direction to register the document presented by the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed by the Temple.

¶33

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶34

5.It is claimed by the Temple that the subject property belongs to the Temple. However, the fact remains that the property in question was the subject matter of the proceedings initiated under the Act 30 of 1963 and pattas have been issued in favour of the third party, namely Vasutheva Iyengar and six others in the year 1963 under Section 8 of the Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The said proceedings reached finality and the said Vasutheva Iyengar alienated the subject property. Even thereafter, there were several transactions.

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2026

¶38

6.The learned Single Judge clearly recorded in the order impugned herein that originally the property belonged to one Kodialam Vasudeva Iyengar and after his demise, his legal heirs derived title over the property vide partition deed dated 15.10.1925. Later the subject property was the subject matter of Act 30 of 1963 and pattas have been issued to individuals.

¶39

7.Admittedly, the property in question was the subject matter of Act 30 of 1963 and pattas have been issued in favour of individuals and the said proceedings reached finality. Later the property has been dealt with by the family of the said individuals. In such circumstances, without challenging the order of the Settlement Tahsildar and so long as the title of the third party is not put in issue in the manner known to law, mere objections by way of protest petition cannot be a ground to stall the registration of a document in respect of the said property.

¶40

8.This Court in the case of Subramani vs. the Sub Registrar and another had elaborately dealt with the issue and held as follows:

¶41

“21. Similarly, this Court in the case of D. Kalaiyarasan v Inspector General reported in (2018 SCC Online Mad 7224) , it was

¶42

4/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2026

¶45

held that unless and until the authority has clinching materials to show that the property belonged to the religious institution, the registration cannot be refused. Also, this Court in the case of G. Rajasulochana v Inspector General made in W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024, it was observed as under:

¶46

“If there is a serious dispute on the title to the land, such questions cannot be decided by the Registrar at the stage of registering a document since he is only conducting a limited summary enquiry.”

¶47

22. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of some letters without production of title deed clinchingly establish the title of the Waqf Board and religious institutions mere citing some objections in the form of letters, document cannot be refused to be registered.

¶48

23. Similarly, this Court has also come across various instances of refusal of documents citing that road has been formed in the particular survey number, therefore, it should be treated as house sites, even though the agricultural land is sought to be transferred. This Court is of the view that merely because some portion of the land in particular survey number sold as house sites earlier, when the remaining land remained as an agricultural land and no layout has been formed in the survey number with the approval of the competent authorities, merely because some portion of the land is sold earlier as house sites, there is no bar for registering agricultural lands.”

¶49

5/7

¶50

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

¶51

W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2026

¶52

9.In such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this writ appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. If at all the appellant Temple disputes the title over the subject property, it is for the Temple to establish the same by way of filing an appropriate suit before the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

[N.S.K., J.] & [P.B.B., J.] 18.06.2026

¶54

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta

¶55

6/7

¶56

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

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2026

¶58

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