Dismissed

Sannasi v. the District Registrar

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WP/22955/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandamus to return original Power of Attorney. Respondent agreed to return document within a week. Court directed second respondent to return original document within one week and disposed of petition without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to return the original Power of Attorney document to the petitioner within one week.

Sannasi Vs the District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 22955 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 22955 of 2026

¶6

Sannasi ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The District Registrar, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶9

The Sub Registrar, Valikandapuram Sub Registrar Office, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. ..Respondents

¶10

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release and return the original Power of Attorney Document dated 18.05.2026 presented by the petitioner in Document No.P/Valikandapuram/629/2026 together with the connected records.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Nalliyappan For Respondents : Mr.M.Roshan Atiq Government's Counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to

¶14

release and return the original Power of Attorney Document dated 18.05.2026

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 22955 of 2026

¶18

presented by the petitioner in Document No.P/Valikandapuram/629/2026 together with the connected records.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the properties comprised in Survey Nos.355/1, 355/2, 356/9, 356/14 and 373/3 situate at Ayan Peraiyur Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District originally belonged to one Abdul Rahim Sahib, who had purchased the said properties under various registered sale deeds between the years 1949 and 1977. Subsequently, dispute arose in respect of the revenue entries and pattas relating to the said lands. One Bahadur Ali, S/o. Batchamiyan approached the District Revenue Officer, Perambalur seeking rectification of erroneous entries made during UDR settlement proceedings. After a detailed enquiry, the District Revenue Officer by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/e-33899/2025, dated 06.03.2026 held that the entries made in the names of A.Sherif Sahib, A.Gulam Khader Sahib and Karuppan in the UDR "A" register were erroneous and consequently, directed restoration of patta in the name of Abdul Rahim Sahib. Thereafter, one Bahadur Ali deriving title through Abdul Rahim Sahib and based upon the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid properties. The petitioner presented the said Power of Attorney document for registration before the second respondent on 18.05.2026 along with connected records and also paid the stamp duty which was kept pending for detailed scrutiny of the document.

¶20

Page2 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

WP No. 22955 of 2026

¶23

The respondent has no authority to indefinitely retain the original Power of Attorney document. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶24

M.Roshan Atiq, learned Government’s Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner’s request will be considered and the original Power of Attorney document will be returned within a period of one week.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

Considering the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to return the original Power of Attorney document to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶28

costs.

¶29

18-06-2026

¶30

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM

¶31

__________ Page3 of 4

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 22955 of 2026

¶34

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶35

SRM

¶36

¶37

1.The District Registrar, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶38

2.The Sub Registrar Valikandapuram Sub Registrar Office, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.

¶39

WP No. 22955 of 2026

¶40

18-06-2026

¶41

__________ Page4 of 4

¶42

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

Sannasi v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannasi v. the District Registrar

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

K.Selvaraj Vs the General Manager

Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Thirukoilnavithar and Vs the Commissioner

Masjid E.Mubarak Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Naryanasamy Vs the Sub Registrar

K.Subramani Vs the District Collector

A.Sathishkumar Vs The Tahsildar